GANESAN Vs. GANAPATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Original Petition has been filed challenging the proceedings initiated by the respondent against the petitioners by way of filing a private complaint for the offences under Sections 147, 294(b) and 506 (ii) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (1) (x) of the SC/ST Act, 1989. It is seen from the records that a similar complaint was given to the Manavalakurichi Police Station and an F.I.R. came to be registered in Crime No.241 of 2005 for the very same offences. After investigation, a closure report was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel. A notice was also issued to the respondent and since the respondent did not file any protest petition, the concerned Magistrate Court on being satisfied with the closure report, took it on file and closed the case.

(2.) The respondent in the mean time had filed a private complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel. This private complaint has been filed with the very same allegations and the Court below has taken cognizance of the complaint.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the respondent ought to have filed a protest petition before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel, after the closure report was filed by the Police. Thereafter, it was left open to the learned Judicial Magistrate to take up the protest petition or to treat it as a private complaint and proceed further in accordance with Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, in this case, the respondent has parellely filed a private complaint and the Court below has taken cognizance of the same. The learned counsel submitted that the second complaint is not maintainable on the same set of facts. In order to substantiate his submissions, the learned counsel has relied the judgment of this Court in the case of A.Krishna Rao Vs. L.S.Kumar reported in 1998 (I) CTC 329.