MARIAPPAN Vs. PANEERSELVAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision is by the complainant, who presented a complaint before the Court of the Judicial II Class Magistrate, THEnkasi , against the respondents herein, for offences under Secs. 147, 447 and 506 (1) read with 109 and 355, I. P. C. , on various allegations. THE learned Magistrate took the sworn statement of the petitioner and forwarded the complaint under Sec. 156 (3) of Cr. P. C. for investigation and report Enquiry report was submitted by the police and after perusing the complaint, enquiry report and the sworn statement, the impugned order was passed by the learned Magistrate under Sec. 203, Cr. P. C. dismissing the complaint. THE aggrieved complainant has preferred this revision.

(2.) THIRU S. Gomathinayagam , learned counsel for the complainant-petitioner would urge that at this stage, under Sec. 203, Cr. P.C. , the Court has merely to find out whether there is material enough to proceed further and cause notice to be issued to the accused and for this purpose the averments in the complaint and the report of the enquiry officer, if any, and the sworn statement recorded have to be accepted at their face value to determine whether any offence is made out and it is not for the Court to assess the relative merit of the allegations made, discuss the probabilities and give factual findings to dismiss the complaint under Sec. 203, Cr. P.C. According to the learned counsel, the complaint disclosed the ingredients of the offences mentioned therein and the sworn statement recorded from the petitioner also showed that the respondents had committed the offences and these averments taken along with the enquiry report were sufficient materials for issuing process to the accused under Sec. 204, Cr. P.C. and dismissal of the complaint under Sec. 203, Cr. P.C. was against law. In addition to the above contentions, on the merits of the case, relying upon the decision in 1985 L. W. ( Crl.) 25 learned counsel for the petitioner would state that this being a revision against an order passed in a pre-process stage, the respondents ought not to be heard since at this stage, the matter is only between the complainant and the court.

(3.) BESIDES these materials, the report of the local head constable on the complaint forwarded to him under Sec. 156 (3), Cr. P. C. inter alia states that at 4. 30 P. M. , there had been an incident, in which the present respondents were injured on an attack made by the father of the petitioner in connection with which a case in Crime No. 132 of 1985 for offences under Secs. 323 and 324, i. P. C. was registered against the petitioner, his father and some others belonging to his group. The report also says that at 5 P. M. when the respondents 1 and 7 were standing in the scene, the petitioner went there and on seeing him, the respondents 1 and 7 became enraged and assaulted the petitioner on his head and left shoulder and that the petitioner at 5. 15 P. M. came to the police station and gave a statement on which the petitioner was sent to the Government hospital, where the medical officer treated him and certified that the injury was simple and as such the offence made out against the respondents 1 and 2 was only under Sec. 323 I. P. C. , which is non-cognizable and that, therefore, he had applied to the court for permission to investigate into the case. No doubt the report concludes by discussing the relevant merits of the two versions and stating that the versions put forward by the present petitioner is false and is a counter blast to Crime No. 132/85 registered against them. The learned magistrate had this enquiry report also before him.