M.Natarajan vs Mr.

Alexendar Mohan on 16 October, 2012

Madras High Court Madras High Court M.Natarajan vs Mr.Alexendar Mohan on 16 October, 2012 DATED: 16.10.2012 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.ARUMUGHASWAMY Criminal Original Petition No.18240 of 2012 M.Natarajan ... Petitioner/Complainant Versus 1.Mr.Alexendar Mohan Inspector General of Police, Central Zone, Tamil Nadu 2.Mr.Amalraj Deputy Inspector General of Police, Trichy. 3. Mr.Dhanraj Xavier, Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur District. 4. Mr.A.K.Giri Superintendent of Police, Anti Land Grabbing Special Cell, Thanjavur District. 5.Mr.Manikavasakam Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Land Grabbing Special Cell, Thanjavur. 6.Mr.Narayanasamy, Inspector of Police,
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/195499903/ 1

M.Natarajan vs Mr.Alexendar Mohan on 16 October, 2012

Anti Land Grabbing Special Cell, Thanjavur. 7.Mr.R.Sigamani, Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Trichy. 8.Mr.Marimuthu, Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Thanjavur. 9.Mr.Somasindaram, Inspector of Police, Medical College Hospital P.S., Thanjavur. 10.Mr.Velu, Inspector of Police, Taluk P.S., Thanjavur, and others. ... Respondents/Accused Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai-600 008 to entertain the complaint of the petitioner Crl.M.P.No.2671/2012 on his file and proceed in accordance with Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. For petitioner .. Mr.A.Kalaiselvan For Respondents .. Mr.A.N.Thambidurai, Addl.Public Prosecutor. ORDER The petitioner filed a private complaint before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai-8, in Crl.M.P.No.2671/2012 against the police officials for the offence punishable under Sections 193, 347, 364, 448, 449, 451 r/w 34 IPC. praying to forward the said complaint to the competent Police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 07.06.2012 returned the complaint on the point of jurisdiction to file before the Court having the competent jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint, in the light of the Judgment reported in 2012(1) Law Weekly (Criminal). Aggrieved against the
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/195499903/ 2

M.Natarajan vs Mr.Alexendar Mohan on 16 October, 2012

said order, the petitioner has come forward with the present petition. 2. Brief facts are as follows:- The complainant in his complaint has stated that he was entered into service as Public Relation Officer on 13.05.1970 and he was holding the office and he further stated about the development regarding the political party between 1987 and 1989 and after the death of the former Chief Minister there was split in the party which resulted in introduction of promulgation of Presidential Rule under 356 of Constitution of India. There was division of group regarding the division of symbol and thereafter he was working as Deputy director in the department of Information and Tourism in 1988 due to political situation, he has resigned his post. 3. The further case of the complainant is that on 18.02.2012 at about 6.00 p.m. 15 persons forcibly trespassed into the petitioner's house at Besant Nagar, Chennai, abducted him and confined in a vehicle, taken him to a lonely place in between Senkippatti and Vallam where the petitioner had been confined by the accused in the midnight from 12.00 am to 2.00 am. Mr.Amalraj IPS planned with their subordinates in the presence of the petitioner to finish the life of the petitioner. He requested them not to do any such illegal act. He said that they have to obey the instruction of Mr.Alexander Mohan, Inspector General of Police and higher police officers. When they about to finish the life of the petitioner, his advocates and press reporters were gathered around him and his life was saved. If they have not come in time no doubt he would have been murdered by police officials as planned by Mr.Amalraj IPS. He immediately informed this untoward incident to his advocates and the people gathered around him. Then at about 2.30 a.m. he was taken to Anti-Land Grabbing Spl. Cell, Thanjavur District where one person was coerced by Mr.Xavier Dhanraj IPS. Mr.Manikavasakam D.S.P and Mr.Narayanasamy Inspector of ALGC of Thanjavur to give complaint against the petitioner. Written complaint was obtained from that person under coercion at about 3 a.m. and F.I.R. in Crime No.5/2012 was registered against the petitioner in his presence. Later on, he came to know that person name is Mr.Ramalingam. Thereafter he was produced before the Judicial Magistrate-II, Thanjavur at about 4 a.m. He narrated the entire incidents before the concerned Magistrate in the presence of his advocates and other persons. He was released on bail on 11.05.2012 even thereafter the police officials the accused herein by misusing their official capacity, closely watching each and every moments of the petitioner with an ulterior motive. 4. The further case of the complainant is that he gave a report dated 18.05.2012 to the D.G.P., Mylapore, the Commissioner of Police, Egmore, Chennai-8 and the Inspector of Police, Thiruvanmiyur Police Station, Chennai by registered post which was received by them on 19.05.2012. Since no F.I.R. is registered he filed a complaint under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for the offence under Sections 193, 347, 364, 448, 449, 451 r/w Section 34 I.P.C. before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai-8. By order dated 07.06.2012 the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate returned the complaint to file before the Court having the competent jurisdiction. This decision was taken by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate based on the judgment of this Court in the case of Karuppa Gounder and another Vs. D.Sekar and others reported in 2012 (1) LW (Cri) 621, by which this Court has set aside the Circular in R.O.C.No.1062/03/F1(P.Dis.No.25/03 dated 22.05.2003. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondents. 6. The petitioner is the Complainant. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as complaint has been presented before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, return of the complaint by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate based on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court reported in 2012 (1) LW (Cri) 621, is not in accordance with law. The judgment reported in 2012 (1) LW (Cri) 621 deals only about the powers of the Chief Judicial Magistrate and as there is no discussion with regard to the powers of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Hence, he prays that the return of the complaint by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has to be set aside and a direction may be given to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to take cognizance of the complaint.
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/195499903/ 3

M.Natarajan vs Mr.Alexendar Mohan on 16 October, 2012

7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has returned the complaint filed by the petitioner on the basis of the judgment the learned single Judge of this Court reported in 2012(1) LW (Crl) 621. Hence, he prays that the order passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has to be confirmed. 8. The only question which needs to be resolved in this petition is whether the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has got exclusive jurisdiction to take cognizance of a private complaint against the police officials. 9. It is the contention of the petitioner, that in the judgment of Karuppa Gounder case deals only with the power of Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Judicial Magistrate and not with the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and Metropolitan Magistrates. The argument does not persuade me at all. In this regard I may refer Section 14 of Cr.P.C. Section 14 Cr.P.C. runs as follows:- "Section 14 of the Code deals with the local jurisdiction of Judicial Magistrates which reads as under:4. Local Jurisdiction of Judicial Magistrates. - (1) Subject to the control of the High Court, the Chief Judicial Magistrate may, from time to time, define the local limits of the areas within which the Magistrates appointed under section 11 or under section 13 may exercise all or any of the powers with which they may respectively be invested under this Code Provided that the Court of a Special Judicial Magistrate may hold its sitting at any place within the local area for which it is established. (2) Except as otherwise provided by such definition, the jurisdiction and powers of every such Magistrate shall extend throughout the district. (3) Where the local jurisdiction of a Magistrate, appointed under section 11 or section 13 or section 18, extends to an area beyond 'the district, or the metropolitan area, as the case may be, in which he ordinarily holds Court, any reference in this Code to the Court of Session, Chief Judicial Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate shall, in relation to such Magistrate, throughout the area within his local jurisdiction, be construed, unless the context otherwise requires, as a reference to the Court of Session, Chief Judicial Magistrate, or Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, exercising jurisdiction in relation to the said district or metropolitan area. Referring to this provision and Section 11 and Section 13 of Cr.P.C in Karuppa Gounder case reported in 2012(1) LW (Crl) 621, this Court scrapped the Circular in R.O.C.No.1062/2003/F1 (P.Dis.25/2003) dated 22.05.2003 which runs as follows: C I R C U L A R Sub: Complaint Private Complaint against Police Officials To be filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court in their respective Districts Instructions Issued. Read: P.Dis.No.597/60, dated 03.09.1960. *** Instructions are enumerated at page 369 of the Criminal Rules of Practice and Circular Order 1958 relating to Private Complaints against Police Officials. Before 1988, any Magistrate other than a Sub Divisional Magistrate or District Magistrate (sic) taking a cognizance of a case on a private complaint against member (sic) of the Police Officials. Consequent to the upgradation of the erstwhile post of Judicial Magistrate of Second Class and integration with that of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class w.e.f 06-10-1988, all the Magistrates in their respective jurisdiction of torture and harassment by the member of Police Officials and dispose of them in accordance to law (sic). Consequent to the implementation of the Orders of the Supreme Court, dated 21.03.2003 in W.P.No.1022/89, and creation of the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate in the cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division), the matter of conferring power to Chief Judicial Magistrate, has been considered. After due deliberation, it is resolved to issue the following Instructions. "All the complaints against police person (sic) be filed before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate only and the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned shall take cognizance of the matter and dispose of the same as per the provisions and laid down therefor." (sic) The receipt of the Circular is to be acknowledged at once. HIGH COURT, MADRAS Sd/-xxxxxxxxx
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/195499903/ 4

M.Natarajan vs Mr.Alexendar Mohan on 16 October, 2012

DATED : 22-5-2003 REGISTRAR GENERAL" 10. This Court in Karuppa Gounder case considered the express provisions of Section 14 Cr.P.C. and held that when the Local Limits of Magistrate has been detained by the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 14 Cr.P.C., then the said Magistrate shall have jurisdiction to take cognizance of any complaint within the territorial limit. Therefore, by means of Circular the said jurisdiction which is defined under Statute cannot be nullified. It is on this ground this Court scrapped the Circular and held that the Judicial Magistrate court is competent to take cognizance of the allegations against the police officials. A close scrutiny of Section 14 Cr.P.C. will go to show that there is no reference about the Chief Judicial Magistrate and Metropolitan Magistrate. But it does not mean that Section 14 Cr.P.C. is not applicable to Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and Metropolitan Magistrate. In this regard I may refer to Section 3(1) Cr.P.C. which runs as follows:- . Construction of references. (1) In this code, (a) Any reference, without any qualifying words to a magistrate shall be construed, unless the context otherwise requires, - (i) In relation to an area outside a metropolitan area, as a reference to a judicial magistrate; (ii) In relation to a metropolitan area, as a reference to a metropolitan Magistrate; (b) Any reference to Magistrate of the second class shall, in relation to an area outside a metropolitan area, be construed as a reference to a Judicial Magistrate of the second class, and, in relation to a Metropolitan area, as reference to a Metropolitan Magistrate; (c) Any reference to a magistrate of the first class shall, (i) In relation to a metropolitan area, be construed as a reference to a metropolitan Magistrate exercising jurisdiction in that area; (ii) In relation to any other area, be construed as reference to a judicial magistrate of the first class exercising Jurisdiction in that area; (d) Any reference to the chief judicial magistrate shall, in relation to a metropolitan area, be construed as reference to the chief metropolitan Magistrate exercising jurisdiction in that area. Section 3(1) (d) makes it clear that the term Chief Judicial Magistrate referred to in Section 14(i) Cr.P.C. should be construed as Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Similarly Section 3(1)(a)(ii) makes it clear that the term Magistrate referred to in Section 14 Cr.P.C. should be construed as Metropolitan Magistrate. 11. Thus, there can be no doubt Section 14(i) Cr.P.C. is applicable to Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and Metropolitan Magistrate. In exercise of the said power Section 14(i) Cr.P.C. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate had detained the territorial jurisdiction of each Metropolitan Magistrate in the Chennai area. As per the judgment of Karuppa Gounder case the Metropolitan Magistrate having jurisdiction over the area where the offence have been committed alone is empowered to take cognizance of the offence. The Circular referred to above earlier was followed and so complaints against policemen were entertained by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Now, in Karuppa Gounder case, the Circular has been quashed. Therefore, as per the definition of Local Limits as referred under Section 14(i) the Metropolitan Magistrate having Local Limits alone has jurisdiction to take cognizance. 12. Hence, I am of the view that the return of the complaint made by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is in accordance with law and there is no need to interfere with the said order. The order passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is confirmed and the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 16.10.2012 Index:Yes Internet:Yes
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/195499903/ 5

M.Natarajan vs Mr.Alexendar Mohan on 16 October, 2012

gr. To 1. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai-8. A.ARUMUGHASWAMY, J gr. PRE DELIVERY ORDER IN Crl.OP.No.18240 of 2012 16.10.2012

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/195499903/