S.Pushpakaran v. The Superintendent of Police

ORDER The Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the impugned order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No-I, Sivakasi in Crl.M.P.No.3084 of 2023, dated 30.05.2023.

¶2The petitioner herein filed a private complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate No-I, Sivakasi, under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., to take action against his daughter-in-law, namely, Mrs.Kavi Barathi and other police officer, namely, Muthu Selvam (SSI).

¶3In the petition, the petitioner specifically averred that on

25.01.2023, the above said police officer, at the instigation of the petitioner's daughter-in-law, trespassed into the house and made a life threatening to the petitioner and his family members. The said police officer also intimidated the petitioner not to interfere with the possession of his daughter-in-law and to create any problem with her. According to the petitioner, he is aged about 67 years and in view of the above said threatening, he sustained injuries. The said police officer, illegally trespassed into the petitioner's house without the lady officers, which amounts to the offence and hence, according to the petitioner, they committed the offences punishable under Sections 109, 120(b), 166, 294B, 352, 452, 506(ii) r/w 34 of IPC. The learned Judicial Magistrate No-I, Sivakasi, without considering Rule 26 of Criminal Rules of Practice and under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C., simply dismissed the petitioner saying that the complaint is a malafide one. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed this Criminal Revision Case before this Court.

¶4According to the petitioner, his daughter-in-law have had an illegal relationship with somebody. Hence, there is some dispute regarding the mother-in-law and daughter-in-law. Hence, there was a complaint made on behalf of the daughter in law before the respondent police.

¶5It is submitted by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that the police officer, on the instruction of the daughter-in-law, only to pacify the dispute, went to the petitioner's house and adviced her to amicably settle the issue. Hence, the learned trial Judge correctly dismissed the petition. Apart from that, the enquiry was conducted by the jurisdictional Deputy Superintendent of Police.

¶6This Court considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶7It is the specific case that there is a dispute between the petitioner and his daughter-in-law. On instructions from the petitioner's daughter-in-law only, the police officer entered into his house only to advise both the parties. Apart from that, the jurisdictional Deputy Superintendent of Police has conducted an enquiry and filed a report, which reads as follows: Gfhh;kDtpd; rq;fjpfs; njhlh;ghf kDjjuh; kw;Wk; vjph;kSkjhuuplk; tprhuiz nra;jjpypUe;Jk;> Neub kw;Wk; kiwKf tprhuizapypUe;Jk;

kDjhuupd;

kfd; NahNf\; vd;gtUk; t.GJg;gl;liar; Nrh;e;j ftpghujp vd;gtUf;Fk; 04.03.2015-k; Njjpad;W jpUkzk; Kbe;Js;sJ. ,th;fSf;F ,uz;L ngz;

Foe;ijfs; cs;sdh;. ,th;fSf;fpilNa rpW rpW kd Crl.R.C.(Mi).No.633oofo2023 rr;ryTfs; ,Ue;J te;Js;sd. mtw;iw nghpNahu;fs; Kd;dpiyapy; Ngrp rhpnra;J te;Js;sdh;. ,jdpilNa fle;j 25.01.2023-k; Njjpad;W ele;j FLk;g gpur;ridapd;NghJ ftpghujpapd; FLk;g ez;guhd rpwg;G rhh;G Ma;thsh; jpU. Kj;Jr;nry;tk; vd;gtUf;F ftpghujpapd; jhahu; jfty; njhptpj;Js;shh;. mjdhy; mUfpy; gzpapypUe;j Nkw;gb Kj;Jr;nry;tk; vd;gth; rPUilAld; mth;fs; tPl;bw;F nrd;Ws;shh;. mq;F nrd;W ,Ujug;gpdiuAk; rkhjhdk; nra;J itj;Js;shh;. Mdhy; Gfhh; kDtpy; njhptpj;Js;sJ Nghd;W vtiuAk; Jd;GWj;jtpy;iy vd;gJ ftpghujpapd; ngw;Nwhh;is tprhuiz nra;jjpypUe;J njhpatUfpwJ. kDjhuUk; mjw;fhd Mjhuq;fs; vJTk; rkh;gpf;fg;gltpy;iy. Nkw;gb Kj;Jr;nry;tk; mth;fs; tPl;bw;F nrd;wjw;fhd CCTVogjpTfs; cs;sd. NkYk;> kDjhuupd; kfd; NahNf\; vd;gth; jdJ kidtp kPJ rptfhrp ePjpj;Jiw eLth; ePjpkd;wj;jpy; tptfhuj;J tof;F gjpT nra;J tprhuizapy; ,Ue;J tUtJ njhpatUfpwJ. ftpghujp vd;gtUk; jd;id jdJ fztUld; Nrh;e;J tho itf;fNfhup ePjpkd;wj;jpy; tof;F jhf;fy; nra;J me;j tof;Fk; tprhuizapy; ,Ue;J tUtJ njhpatUfpwJ. vdNt> ,UtiuAk; jhq;fs; njhlh;e;Js;s ePjpkd;w tof;fpd; jPh;g;gpidg; nghWj;J ele;J nfhs;s mwpTWj;jpAk;> rpwg;G rhh;G Ma;thsh; jpU. Kj;Jr;nry;tk; vd;gtiu mth;fsJ FLk;g tptfhuj;jpy; jiyaplf; $lhJ vd vr;rhpj;J mDg;gp itf;fg;gl;lJ vd;w tpguk; njhptpj;Jf;nfhs;sg;gLfpwJ.

8.From the above, it is clear that the said police officer went to the house of the petitioner only to pacify both the parties. Further, he has not committed any illegality. He only suitably advised to settle the dispute. The above report also justify the same.

¶9Therefore, for the above said reasons, this Court does not find any merit to interfere with the order passed by the learned judicial Magistrate No-I, Sivakasi, in Crl.M.P.No.3084 of 2023, dated

30.05.2023.

¶10Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case fails and the same is dismissed. Crl.R.C.(Mi).No.633oofo2023 o oo o ooooooooooooo02.11.2023 NCC :Yeso/oNo Indexo :Yeso/oNo Internet :Yeso/oNo sbn oK.K.RAMAKRISHNANoo,oJo. sbn Crl.RC.(MD).No.633oofo2023

02.11.2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Reserved on : 04.07.2023 Pronounced on : 02.11.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN Crl.RC.(MD).No.633 of 2023 S.Pushpakaran ... Complainant Vs. 1.The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District, SH 44, District Collectorate, Sulakkarai, Virudhunagar, Tamil Nadu 626 002. 2.The Inspector of Police(SHO), Sivakasi Town Police Station, Sivakasi 6261213 ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records and set aside the order dated 30.05.2023 in C.M.P.No.3082 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sivakasi. For Petitioner : Mr.V.G.Velmurugan For respondents : Mr.R.Sivakumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side)