Madras High Court
R.G.Rathina Velsamy @ R.G.Rethinam vs Dhana Lakshmi on 28 November, 2024
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.16626 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 28.11.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.16626 of 2023
and
Crl.M.P.(MD).Nos.13230 and 13232 of 2023
R.G.Rathina Velsamy @ R.G.Rethinam ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.Dhana Lakshmi
2.The State
Represented by
the Inspector of Police,
Kenikkarai Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District.
(Crime No.551 of 2021) ...Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for
the records pertaining to set aside the impugned order dated 17.10.2022 made in
Crl.M.P.No.1106 of 2022 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional
Mahila Court, Ramanathapuram.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.S.Jeyakarthik
For R-1 : Mr.P.Praveen Kumar
For R-2 : Mr.A.Albert James,
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/03/2025 05:26:57 pm )
1/7
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.16626 of 2023
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed challenging the cognizance
order passed by the Court below in Crl.M.P.No.1106 of 2022, dated 17.10.2022.
2. Heard the learned counsel on either side.
3. The first respondent gave a complaint to the second respondent Police
on the ground that the first respondent’s son and the petitioner’s daughter were
having an affair. The petitioner was taking steps to arrange for the marriage of his
daughter. Hence, the first respondent went to the house of the petitioner and
informed about the love affair. There was some wordy quarrel. Due to this previous
enmity, on 18.07.2021 at about 04.00 p.m., the petitioner and others are said to have
entered into the house of the first respondent and abused the first respondent and her
mother in filthy language and also attacked the first respondent with iron rod and
caused injury. Based on this complaint, the second respondent registered an FIR in
Crime No.551 of 2021 against the petitioner and three unnamed persons for the
alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 452, 323, 324, 506(2) of IPC and Section 4
of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 2002.
4. On completion of investigation, a closure report was filed before the
Court below. The RCS notice was also served on the defacto complainant. The first
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/03/2025 05:26:57 pm )
2/7
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.16626 of 2023
respondent filed a protest petition in Crl.M.P.No.1106 of 2022. The Court below
decided to convert the protest petition into a private complaint and accordingly,
passed the cognizance order dated 17.10.2022 and issued process to the petitioner
who has been arrayed as Accused No.1. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition
has been filed before this Court.
5. This Court has repeatedly held that whenever a referred charge sheet is
filed, three options are available to the Magistrate. The first option is to disregard
the opinion of the police and to issue process to the accused persons, if there are
sufficient prima facie materials to substantiate the charge. The second option
available is to entertain the protest petition from the defacto complainant and to
order for further investigation. The third option is to entertain the protest petition
and deal it as a private complaint and proceed further in accordance with law. In the
case on hand, the Court below has resorted to the third option by treating the protest
petition as a private complaint.
6. While the Court below opted for the above procedure, the Court was
duty bound to look into the closure report filed by the Police and also the materials
collected by the Police in support of the closure report before taking cognizance of
the private complaint. The Court below cannot completely disregard the closure
report and the materials collected along with the closure report and only deal with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/03/2025 05:26:57 pm )
3/7
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.16626 of 2023
the sworn statement of the defacto complainant and the witnesses present whose
sworn statement has also recorded. The sworn statement, the allegations made in the
complaint, the closure report filed by the Police and the materials collected by the
Police along with the closure report must all be looked into by the Magistrate before
cognizance is taken.
7. The law on this issue was discussed in detail by this Court in the case of
Narayanamma and Others Vs. Chikka Venkateshaiah reported 2019 (2) LW (Crl)
522. Useful reference can also be made to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Vishnu Kumar Tiwari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, through Secretary Home, Civil
Secretariat, Lucknow reported in 2019 (5) CTC 603.
8. The cognizance order passed by the Court below does not reflect the
application of mind on the closure report filed by the Police and the materials that
were collected by the Police along with the closure report.
9. In view of the same, this Court has no other alternative remedy except to
interfere with the order passed by the Court below in Crl.M.P.No.1106 of 2022 dated
17.10.2022. Accordingly, the same is hereby set aside.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/03/2025 05:26:57 pm )
4/7
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.16626 of 2023
10. The matter is remanded back to the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Ramanathapuram with a direction to take into
consideration the protest petition, sworn statements recorded, closure report and also
the materials collected along with the closure report and thereafter, pass appropriate
orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
11. It was brought to the notice of this Court that the case is now pending
in C.C.No.250 of 2022 before the Court below. Since this Court has interfered with
the cognizance order, the further proceedings will also automatically fall. Therefore,
depending upon the orders to be passed by the Court below, the Court can direct
reviving the Calender Case.
12. In the result, the Criminal Original Petition is disposed of with the
above directions. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
28.11.2024
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
TSG
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate,
Additional Mahila Court, Ramanathapuram..
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/03/2025 05:26:57 pm )
5/7
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.16626 of 2023
2.The Inspector of Police,
Kenikkarai Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/03/2025 05:26:57 pm )
6/7
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.16626 of 2023
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
TSG
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.16626 of 2023
28.11.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/03/2025 05:26:57 pm )
7/7