VENKATESH Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE SIVAGANGAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE is no representation for the petitioner. The submissions made by Mr.Siva.Ayyappan, learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) representing the respondents were heard.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the non-registration of a case based on the complaint of the petitioner herein dated 21.09.2008, the petitioner has brought forth this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., invoking the inherent powers of the Court and has prayed for the issue of a direction to the second respondent to register a criminal case based on the said complaint and investigate the same.

(3.) HOWEVER, in the event of the police officer in-charge of the police station refusing to register a case even though the complaint discloses commission of a cognizable offence, as per the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., reported in 2008(1) MLJ (Crl) 1393 (SC); and in Aleque Padamsee v. Union of India reported in 2008(1) MLJ (Crl) 490 (SC), the remedy available to the complainant/informant is to first approach the Superintendent of Police concerned and then, in case of inaction on his part also, to approach the Judicial Magistrate either under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., or under Section 200 Cr.P.C. by way of a private complaint. The rigour of the said judgment has been diluted to some extent by the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court sitting in the Principal Bench in G.Arokiya Marie v. Superintendent of Police reported in 2008(2) MLJ (Crl) 796, wherein it has been held that the said rule enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is not without exception and that in appropriate cases, in order to prevent miscarriage of justice, directions can be issued. The learned Single Judge has given some illustrations of the cases (murder, attempt to murder wherein grievous injuries have been caused, robbery, dacoity, rape and attempt to rape), in which directions have to be issued so as to ensure that the evidence in such serious cases do not get erased by passage of time. As it is contended by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) representing the respondents that the injuries sustained by the petitioner were simple in nature, it can be said that the present case does not come under anyone of the offences coming under the exempted category enumerated in the said judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the direction for registration of a case cannot be issued in this case directly.