MA THI CHOLAR Vs. SUNDARARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is against the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Tiruchirapalli, passed under Section 203, Code of Criminal Procedure dismissing the complaint given by the revision petitioner.

(2.) The revision petitioner, who is an Advocate by profession, but was acting as a President of Thanthai Periyar Slum Dwellers' Association, lodged a complaint against the respondent, who is a Sub-Inspector of Police, attached to Pallakarai Police Station, Trichy, at that time, for the offences under Sections 342, 355 and 506 Part I, Indian Penal Code and Order 663 of Police Standing Orders. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had recorded the sworn statements of the complainant and two other persons and in spite of that, he felt that prima facie case was not made out against the respondent/accused, and therefore, dismissed the complaint under Section 203 Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, this revision.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner Ms. Jayamangalam would submit that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trichy, had assessed the evidence even at the stage before the process for the complaint was issued to the accused and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate without knowing the scope of Section 203, Code of Criminal Procedure, should not have passed the order dismissing the complaint when especially there are statements from two witnesses apart from the sworn statement of the complainant and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. She has cited a series of decisions to support her argument that the stage for the assessment of the evidence comes only after the complaint was taken on file but for dismissing the complaint under Section 203 Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court has to see from the statement whether a prima facie case is made out from the averments of the sworn statements, but contrary to this principle in this case, though the complainant has spoken about the wrongful restraint, attack and threatening made by the respondent the trial Court had dismissed the complaint itself without issuing the process to the accused and therefore the mode adopted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for the dismissal of the complaint is illegal.