Patrick v. The State Rep.By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 24.06.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.R.C.No.1035 of 2023 Patrick ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The State represented by The Sub Inspector of Police, G1 Vepery Police Station, Chennai 600 007.

2. Caleb Joshua

3. Kazia (R2 and R3 impleaded as per order dated 24.06.2025 made in Crl.M.P.No.5416 of 2025 in Crl.RC.No.1035 of 2023) ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Revision case has been filed under Section 392 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records made in Impugned order in Crl.M.P.No.28892 of 2022 dated 07.01.2023 passed by the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008 and set aside the same. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sankarasubbu For R1 : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.side) For R2 and R3 : Mr.B.Mohan

ORDER

This Criminal Revision case has been filed as against the order passed in in Crl.M.P.No.28892 of 2022 dated 07.01.2023 passed by the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008, thereby dismissing the protest petition filed by the petitioner.

2. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

3. Originally, the petitioner lodged a complaint alleging that the proposed accused had committed certain atrocities in the administration of Church. It was further alleged that there were deviations from the scope and by-laws of the Apostolic Christian Assembly. Therefore, the petitioner sought police protection to prevent unlawful activities, criminal misbehavior and manhandling at the hands of the proposed accused. However, no action was taken by the first respondent. Therefore, the petitioner lodged a complaint in Crl.M.P.No.14930 of 2022 seeking direction under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C, on the file of the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. By an order dated 12.07.2022 the learned Magistrate directed the first respondent to conduct an enquiry and if any cognizable offence was made out, to proceed in accordance with law, by registering a FIR.

4. As directed by the learned Magistrate, the first respondent conducted a detailed enquiry and submitted a report stating that no cognizable offence is made to warrant registration of FIR. On the said report, once again, the petitioner filed a protest petition in Crl.M.P.No.28892 of 2022. In the said petition, the learned Magistrate had examined the petitioner and another witness one Syed Mohamed Moideen. On the basis of the statements recorded from the petitioner and the said witness, the Trial Court found that there was absolutely no prima facie case for registration of FIR and held that the first respondent had rightly submitted a report.

5. That apart, the petitioner had also lodged a complaint before the Inspector of Police, G1 Vepery Police Station, which was also closed as "Mistake of Fact". Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred Crl.M.P.No.30866 of 2022, which was also dismissed after conducting a detailed enquiry.

6. In view of the above, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.28892 of 2022 dated 07.01.2023 by the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008. Accordingly, this

Criminal Revision case stands dismissed.

24.06.2025 (2/2) Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking order mn

To

1. The II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.

2. The Sub Inspector of Police, G1 Vepery Police Station, Chennai 600 007.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J mn Crl.R.C.No.1035 of 2023 24.06.2025 (2/2)