C.ILAVARASU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Private Complaint filed by the RDO, Periyakulam has been put to challenge before this Court u/s 482 of Cr.P.C.

(2.) The short facts of the case is that one Chandrasekar was called to the Police Station on 20.11.2010 to enquire on the suspicion that he is involved in a case of theft of gold jewellery. The deceased Chandrasekar was found dead near a Temple at Madurai Road, and the same was entered in the accident register as brought dead. Immediately thereafter an FIR was registered on 21.11.2010 u/s 174 of Cr.P.C and the RDO conducted an inquiry. In the meantime, the Post mortem was also conducted and certain injuries were found in the body of the deceased. The investigation was taken up by the DSP, Periyakulam and after a detailed investigation, a Closure Report was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Periyakulam and RCS Notice was also served upon the wife of the deceased. In the meantime, the RDO who conducted the inquiry has chosen to file a Private Complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Periyakulam. This complaint has now been put to challenge before this Court.

(3.) Mr.A.Ramesh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner apart from canvassing the case on merits, raised a preliminary objection regarding the very maintainability of the Private Complaint. The learned Senior counsel further submitted that the Magistrate Court adopted a wrong procedure, wherein, the learned Magistrate even without taking cognizance u/s 190(1) of Cr.P.C has proceeded to enquire u/s 202 of Cr.P.C, various witnesses and the same is totally opposed to the procedure established under Cr.P.C. The learned Senior counsel further submitted that even though cognizance has not been taken by the learned Magistrate, this Court in exercise of its powers u/s 482 of Cr.P.C can strike down the complaint on the ground that the same is not maintainable and in order to secure the ends of justice.