Madras High CourtCRL RC(MD)/368/2013dismissed

Lourdhu Anthonisamy v. The Inspector Of Police

2017-08-03Honourable Mr Justice V. Bharathidasan2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 03.08.2017 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN Criminal Revision Case (MD) No.368 of 2013 Lourdhu Anthonisamy ...Revision Petitioner/Complainant Vs.

State by The Inspector of Police, V.K.Puram Police Station, Ambasamuthiram Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

(Crime No.131/2011) ... Respondent/Complainant Petition filed under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C., to call for the records and revise the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamuthiram, Tirunelveli District, dated 15.02.2013 made in Cr.M.P.No.9310 of 2012.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Palanivelayutham For Respondent : Mr.C.Mayilvahana Rajendran, Additional Public Prosecutor.

ORDER

Challenging the order dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner, the present Criminal Revision Case has been filed. 2.Earlier, the petitioner given a complaint against Muthukumar and Ramalakshmi before the respondent police for the offence punishable under Sections 294(b) and 427 IPC in Crime No.131 of 2011 and after investigation, a negative final report has been filed closing the complaint as mistake of fact. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a private complaint. The learned Judicial Magistrate once again referred the matter for reinvestigation by some other Investigating Officer. After reinvestigation another final report has been filed once again closing the complaint as mistake of fact. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a private complaint which was dismissed by the Court below. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Revision Case has been filed.

3.I have heard Mr.S.Palanivelayutham, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.C.Mayilvahana Rajendran, learned Additional Public Prosecution for the respondent.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.From the perusal of the records, it could be seen that the Court below has come to the conclusion that the petitioner and the accused are neighbours and there is no material available on record to show that the accused person has caused damage and also abused in a filthy language. Considering the above facts, the Court below has dismissed the petition. I find no infirmity or irregularity in the order passed by the Court below. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(writs) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Inspector of Police, V.K.Puram Police Station, Ambasamuthiram Taluk,Tirunelveli District.

2.The Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamuthiram, Tirunelveli District.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.

sms MAS/MR-KKR/SAR1:28.08.2017:2P-4C Order made in Criminal Revision Case (MD) No.368 of 2013 03.08.2017 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/