{"id":232812,"date":"2010-04-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-04-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-v-p-maharaja-vs-state-represented-by-on-12-april-2010"},"modified":"2016-05-31T13:13:46","modified_gmt":"2016-05-31T07:43:46","slug":"m-v-p-maharaja-vs-state-represented-by-on-12-april-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-v-p-maharaja-vs-state-represented-by-on-12-april-2010","title":{"rendered":"M.V.P.Maharaja vs State Represented By on 12 April, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
M.V.P.Maharaja vs State Represented By on 12 April, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 12\/04\/2010\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH\n\nCrl.O.P(MD)No.1218 of 2009\n\n\nM.V.P.Maharaja\t\t\t\t... Petitioner\/\n\t\t\t\t\tDefacto complainant\n\nVs\n\n\n1.State represented by\n  The Sub Inspector of Police,\n  Thoothukudi Vadapagam Police Station,\n  Thoothukudi District.\t \t          ... 1st Respondent\/\n\t\t\t\t\t\tRespondent\n\t\t\t\t\t      Complainant\n\n\n2.P.Maniraj\n2.M.Mahendra Prabhu\t\t         ... Respondents 2 and 3\/\n\t\t\t\t\t   Petitioners\/Accused\n\n\nPrayer\n\nPetition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to set\naside the order made in Crl.R.C.No.24 of 2008 on the file of the learned Fast\nTrack Court No.I, Tuticorin, and dismiss the discharge petition filed by the\nrespondents 2 and 3 in Crl.M.P.No.8965 of 2007 in C.C.No.49 of 2007 on the file\nof the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tuticorin.\n\t\t\n!For Petitioner ... Mr.V.Sasikumar\n^For Respondent ... Mr.S.Muthu Venkatesan,\n\t\t    Govt.Advocate (Crl.Side) for R.1\n\t\t    Mr.P.Pethu Rajesh for R2 & R3\n\n* * * * *\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
\tThe petitioner herein is the defacto complainant in C.C.No.49 of 2007 on
\nthe file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tuticorin.  The petitioner
\nand the second respondent are brothers and the third respondent is a college
\nstudent and the son of the second respondent.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the
\norder passed by the Fast Track Court No.I, Tuticorin, in Crl.R.C.No.24 of 2008,
\nwherein the order passed in C.C.No.49 of 2007 on the file of the learned
\nJudicial Magistrate No.II, Tuticorin, rejecting the discharge petition filed by
\nthe respondents 2 and 3, has been set aside by allowing the said Criminal
\nrevision.\n<\/p>\n
\t3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t3.1.On 28.12.2006, a complaint was given by the second respondent against
\nthe petitioner herein alleging that the petitioner has assaulted him with sickle
\nat 09.30 p.m, along with two other persons and used filthy language against the
\nsecond respondent’s wife.  The said complaint has been made for the alleged
\noffences under Sections 341, 324 and 506(ii) I.P.C.  Thereafter, the said
\ncomplaint was received and instead of registering the complaint, a receipt was
\ngiven by the first respondent.  The second respondent is also said to have been
\ninjured with contusion of the right arm.  Thereafter, another complaint was
\ngiven by the petitioner against the respondents 2 and 3 on 29.12.2006 at 01.30
\na.m. for the same occurrence for the alleged offences under Sections 341, 324
\nand 506(ii) I.P.C.  The said complaint was made against the respondents 2 and 3.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.2.The subsequent complaint given by the petitioner has been registered
\nin Cr.No.644 of 20056 as against the earlier complaint given by the second
\nrespondent and it was only received and receipt in Receipt No.308\/2006 alone was
\ngiven.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.3.The second respondent filed a petition under Section 156(3) of the
\nCode of Criminal Procedure to register the earlier complaint against the
\npetitioner and the learned Judicial Magistrate  in Crl.M.P.No.762 of 2007 dated
\n20.02.2007, has ordered the registration of the complaint and to investigate
\ninto the matter.  The said complaint was not registered in spite of the
\nsubsequent two communications sent by the learned jurisdictional Magistrate.
\nThereafter, a contempt petition was filed by the second respondent against the
\nfirst respondent for not registering the case and investigating the matter.  The
\nsaid petition was dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tuticorin,
\nin Cr.M.P.No.2918 of 2007 on 23.07.2007, stating that inasmuch as the first
\nrespondent has sought for clarification in view of the allegations made by the
\nsecond respondent against the first respondent regarding the registration of the
\nF.I.R, the case has not been registered as per the directions of the learned
\nJudicial Magistrate No.II, Tuticorin and therefore, the same cannot be construed
\nas wilful disobedience.  Thereafter, a reference notice was given by the first
\nrespondent to the petitioner on 19.10.2007 stating that the case has been
\nregistered against the petitioner on 30.05.2007 itself and closed on 31.05.2007.
\nThereafter, the second respondent filed a discharge petition in Crl.M.P.No.8965
\nof 2007.  In the said petition, the second respondent has also filed a number of
\ndocuments.  The learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tuticorin, has dismissed the
\nsaid petition, but the same was reversed by the Fast Track Court No.I,
\nTuticorin, in Crl.R.C.No.24 of 2008.\n<\/p>\n
\t4. Challenging the above said order, this petition has been filed seeking
\ninvocation of the power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
\nProcedure.\n<\/p>\n
\t5. Before the trial Court, while filing the discharge petition, number of
\ndocuments have been marked by the second respondent.  The second respondent has
\nalso produced the documents to show that his complaint was earlier and it was
\nnot registered, that before the same hospital, both the petitioner and the
\nsecond respondent have been referred, even before the hospital, the petitioner
\nwas given only Out Patient receipt and the petitioner was shown to have been
\ngiven the Accident Register.  The first Accident Register which was written and
\ncancelled having the time at 03.00 a.m and the second Accident Register was also
\nsigned showing the same time, but there is difference of about 50 numbers
\nbetween the earlier Accident Register which was cancelled and the subsequent
\none.  Further documents are produced to show that the jail authorities at the
\ntime of remand as well as the learned Judicial Magistrate, recorded the nature
\nof injuries sustained by the second respondent and in spite of the reference
\nmade by the jail authorities with a request to the first respondent to give
\nsufficient protection for treatment of the second respondent, no sufficient
\naction was taken and there is contradiction between the injuries as noted by the
\nlearned Magistrate and the jail authorities as against the one noted in the
\nreceipt given by the hospital authorities.  Further documents have been given to
\nshow that the person concerned who gave the Accident Register is not the person
\nauthorised to give.  It is also indicated that the first Accident Register which
\nwas cancelled was signed by the authorised person, but the second one was not
\nauthorised and the information obtained under the Right to Information Act, was
\nalso shown as one of the documents to substantiate the said contention.\n<\/p>\n
\t6. The learned Judicial Magistrate has dismissed the discharge petition
\nfiled by the petitioner without considering the documents filed by the
\nrespondents 2 and 3.  However, the said documents have been taken into
\nconsideration by the Fast Track Court No.I, Tuticorin and the finding has been
\ngiven that the investigation has not been done by the first respondent properly
\nand it reveals only a prejudiced view in favour of the one party, more so, in
\nnot registering the earlier complaint.  The learned Judge has also considered
\nall the documents produced by the respondents 2 and 3.\n<\/p>\n
\t7. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Fast Track
\nCourt No.I, Tuticorin, has committed a grave error in exercising the revisional
\npower on a revision filed challenging or declining the discharge in considering
\nthe documents produced by the respondents 2 and 3.  The learned Counsel strongly
\ncontended that under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, at the time
\nof framing charges and at the time of taking cognizance, there is no power or
\nauthority for the Courts below to take into consideration any document produced
\nby the accused.  In other words, the discharge petition will have to be decided
\nbased upon the materials produced by the prosecution alone and therefore, the
\nproceedings is liable to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
\t8. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioner,
\nhas relied upon the following decisions:\n<\/p>\n
\t(i) Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal and<\/a> another [(1979) 3 Supreme
\nCourt Cases 4].\n<\/p>\n
\t(ii) Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Anil
\nKumar Bhunja and others<\/a> [(1979) 4 Supreme Court Cases 274].\n<\/p>\n
\t(iii) Nemichand Jain v. Roshanlal and others [(2004) 13 Supreme Court
\nCases 461].\n<\/p>\n
\t(iv) State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi<\/a> [(2005) 1 Supreme Court Cases
\n568].\n<\/p>\n
\t(v) Hem Chand v. State of Jharkhand<\/a> [(2008) 5 Supreme Court Cases 113].\n<\/p>\n
\t(vi) Bholu Ram v. State of Punjab and<\/a> another [(2008) 9 Supreme Court
\nCases 140].\n<\/p>\n
\t(vii) Palwinder Singh v. Balwinder Singh<\/a> [AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 887].\n<\/p>\n
\t(viii) Indu Jain v. State of M.P. and others<\/a> [AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 976],
\nand prayed for allowing this petition.\n<\/p>\n
\t9. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondents 2 and 3, submitted
\nthat it is a clear case where the first respondent has taken sides by conducting
\na partial, biased and tardy investigation.  The learned Counsel further
\nsubmitted that the non-registration and non-disclosure of earlier complaint
\ncoupled with the attitude of the first respondent in refusing to accompany the
\nrespondents 2 and 3 to the hospital, not registering the earlier complaint in
\nspite of the directions obtained under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal
\nProcedure and not disclosing the fact of registration of the complaint on
\n30.05.2007 and its consequential closure on 31.05.2007 till 19.10.2007, etc.,
\nwould clearly show that the first respondent has conducted the investigation not
\nonly contrary to the Police Standing Orders, but in a partial manner supporting
\nthe case of the petitioner and therefore, the proceedings are liable to be
\nquashed.  The learned Counsel further submitted that in any case, the power
\nunder Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked in a given
\ncase where the injustice is manifest and in the present case where revisional
\norders have been passed by the learned Fast Track Judge on consideration of the
\nmaterials available on record, the same need not be interfered with.\n<\/p>\n
\t10. I have heard the arguments of the learned Counsel appearing for the
\nparties and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the first
\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n
\t11. As contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, at the time of
\nframing charges or taking cognizance, neither the trial Court nor the revisional
\nCourt would look into the documents produced by the accused persons.  What is
\nrequired is to be seen a prima facie case and the accused can produce the
\ndocuments only at the time of trial.  In other words, the Code of Criminal
\nProcedure does not contemplate a mini trial before a full fledged trial.\n<\/p>\n
\t12. In State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi<\/a> [(2005) 1 Supreme Court
\nCases 568], the Honourable Apex Court has observed as follows:
\n\t“16. All the decisions, when they hold that there can only be limited
\nevaluation of materials and documents on record and sifting of evidence to prima
\nfacie find out whether sufficient ground exists or not for the purpose of
\nproceeding further with the trial, have so held with reference to materials and
\ndocuments produced by the prosecution and not the accused. The decisions proceed
\non the basis of settled legal position that the material as produced by the
\nprosecution alone is to be considered and not the one produced by the accused.
\nThe latter aspect relating to the accused though has not been specifically
\nstated, yet it is implicit in the decisions. It seems to have not been
\nspecifically so stated as it was taken to be a well-settled proposition. This
\naspect, however, has been adverted to in State Anti-Corruption Bureau v. P.
\nSuryaprakasam where considering the scope of Sections 239 and 240 of the Code it
\nwas held that at the time of framing of charge, what the trial court is required
\nto, and can consider are only the police report referred to under Section 173 of
\nthe Code and the documents sent with it. The only right the accused has at that
\nstage is of being heard and nothing beyond that. (emphasis supplied) The
\njudgment of the High Court quashing the proceedings by looking into the
\ndocuments filed by the accused in support of his claim that no case was made out
\nagainst him even before the trial had commenced was reversed by this Court. It
\nmay be noticed here that learned counsel for the parties addressed the arguments
\non the basis that the principles applicable would be same – whether the case be
\nunder Sections 227 and 228 or under Sections 239 and 240 of the Code.\n<\/p>\n
\t17. As opposed to the aforesaid legal position, the learned counsel
\nappearing for the accused contended that the procedure which deprives the
\naccused to seek discharge at the initial stage by filing unimpeachable and
\nunassailable material of sterling quality would be illegal and violative of
\nArticle 21 of the Constitution since that would result in the accused having to
\nface the trial for a long number of years despite the fact that he is liable to
\nbe discharged if granted an opportunity to produce the material and on perusal
\nthereof by the court. The contention is that such an interpretation of Sections
\n227 and 239 of the Code would run the risk of those provisions being declared
\nultra vires of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and to save the said
\nprovisions from being declared ultra vires, the reasonable interpretation to be
\nplaced thereupon is the one which gives a right, howsoever limited that right
\nmay be, to the accused to produce unimpeachable and unassailable material to
\nshow his innocence at the stage of framing charge.\n<\/p>\n
\t18. We are unable to accept the aforesaid contention. The reliance on
\nArticles 14 and 21 is misplaced. The scheme of the Code and object with which
\nSection 227 was incorporated and Sections 207 and 207-A omitted have already
\nbeen noticed. Further, at the stage of framing of charge roving and fishing
\ninquiry is impermissible. If the contention of the accused is accepted, there
\nwould be a mini-trial at the stage of framing of charge. That would defeat the
\nobject of the Code. It is well settled that at the stage of framing of charge
\nthe defence of the accused cannot be put forth. The acceptance of the contention
\nof the learned counsel for the accused would mean permitting the accused to
\nadduce his defence at the stage of framing of charge and for examination thereof
\nat that stage which is against the criminal jurisprudence. By way of
\nillustration, it may be noted that the plea of alibi taken by the accused may
\nhave to be examined at the stage of framing of charge if the contention of the
\naccused is accepted despite the well-settled proposition that it is for the
\naccused to lead evidence at the trial to sustain such a plea. The accused would
\nbe entitled to produce materials and documents in proof of such a plea at the
\nstage of framing of the charge, in case we accept the contention put forth on
\nbehalf of the accused. That has never been the intention of the law well settled
\nfor over one hundred years now. It is in this light that the provision about
\nhearing the submissions of the accused as postulated by Section 227 is to be
\nunderstood. It only means hearing the submissions of the accused on the record
\nof the case as filed by the prosecution and documents submitted therewith and
\nnothing more. The expression “hearing the submissions of the accused” cannot
\nmean opportunity to file material to be granted to the accused and thereby
\nchanging the settled law. At the stage of framing of charge hearing the
\nsubmissions of the accused has to be confined to the material produced by the
\npolice.”\n<\/p>\n
\t13. Following the above said judgment, in Indu Jain v. State of M.P. and
\nothers<\/a> [AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 976], the Honourable Apex Court has observed as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“20.Ms Makhija lastly referred to the three-Judge Bench decision of this
\nCourt in State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi<\/a> in which the question decided
\ndifferently in Satish Mehra v. Delhi Admn. was referred to. In Satish Mehra case
\na two-Judge Bench of this Court had decided that at the stage of framing of
\ncharge, the trial Judge was competent to look into the material produced on
\nbehalf of defence at the time of framing of charge in order to come to a
\ndecision as to whether it was at all necessary to frame charges on the material
\nproduced on behalf of the prosecution as well as the defence. Answering the
\nreference in the negative, the three-Judge Bench overruled the view expressed in
\nSatish Mehra case and held that at the said stage of framing charge, the court
\nwas only required to look into the material produced on behalf of the
\nprosecution in deciding whether a particular case was fit to go to trial.”\n<\/p>\n
\t14. In Hem Chand v. State of Jharkhand<\/a> [(2008) 5 Supreme Court Cases 113],
\nit has been observed in paragraph 9 as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“9. It is beyond any doubt or dispute that at the stage of framing of
\ncharge, the Court will not weigh the evidence.  The stage for appreciating the
\nevidence for the purpose of arriving at a conclusion as to whether the
\nprosecution was able to bring home the charge against the accused or not would
\narise only after all the evidence is brought on record at the trial. The
\ndocuments whereupon the appellant intended to rely were: (i) an order of
\nassessment passed by the Income Tax Authority and (ii) his declaration of
\nassets.”\n<\/p>\n
\t15. In Palwinder Singh v. Balwinder Singh<\/a> [AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 887], it
\nis held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion
\nthat the High Court committed a serious error in passing the impugned judgment
\ninsofar as it entered into the realm of appreciation of evidence at the stage of
\nthe framing of the charges itself. The jurisdiction of the learned Sessions
\nJudge while exercising power under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
\nis limited. Charges can be framed also on the basis of strong suspicion.
\nMarshalling and appreciation of evidence is not in the domain of the Court at
\nthat point of time. This aspect of the matter has been considered by this Court
\nin State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi<\/a> wherein it was held as under:
\n“23. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, in our view, clearly the law is
\nthat at the time of framing charge or taking cognizance the accused has no right
\nto produce any material. Satish Mehra case holding that the trial court has
\npowers to consider even materials which the accused may produce at the stage of
\nSection 227 of the Code has not been correctly decided.”\n<\/p>\n
\t16. A similar view has been taken by the Honourable Apex Court in Bholu
\nRam v. State of Punjab and<\/a> another [(2008) 9 Supreme Court Cases 140] and it is
\nheld as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“58. In our considered opinion, the Revisional Court was not justified in
\nentering into correctness or otherwise of the evidence at the stage of issuance
\nof summons to Respondent 2.  Admittedly, the Judicial Magistrate had considered
\na limited question whether on the basis of evidence of prosecution witnesses,
\nprima facie offence had been made out against Respondent 2.  He, on the basis of
\nsuch evidence, was satisfied that the case was required to be gone into and
\nissued a summons.  To us, the Revisional Court was not right in interfering with
\nthat order.  Hence, even on that ground, the order was not in accordance with
\nlaw.”\n<\/p>\n
\t17. The above said pronouncements of the Honourable Apex Court have made
\nit very clear that at the time of considering the application filed to quash the
\nproceedings, the Court concerned shall not look into the documents produced by
\nthe accused, but will have to see whether it is a case for discharge based upon
\nthe materials produced by the prosecution alone.\n<\/p>\n
\t18. However, the question to be considered in the present case on hand, is
\nas to whether the procedure adopted by the first respondent is impartial, fair,
\njust and proper or not?.\n<\/p>\n
\t19. In order to appreciate the above said position, this Court will have
\nto see the procedure contemplated under the Police Standing Orders under Chapter
\nXXX.  PSO 566, is extracted hereunder:\n<\/p>\n
\t“PSO 566. Investigation to be impartial.\n<\/p>\n
\t(1) Investigating officers are warned against prematurely committing
\nthemselves to any view of the facts for, or against a person.  The aim of an
\ninvestigating officer should be to find out the truth, and to achieve this
\npurpose, it is necessary to preserve an open mind throughout the Inquiry.
\n\t(2) Charge-sheets in cases and counter cases – In a complaint and counter
\ncomplaint obviously arising out of the same transaction the Investigating
\nofficer should enquire into both of them and adopt one or the other of the two
\ncourses, viz., (1) to charge the case where the accused were the aggressors or
\n(2) to refer both the cases if he should find them untrue.  He should place
\nbefore the court a definite case which he asks it to accept.  The Investigating
\nofficer in such cases should not accept into one complaint and examine only
\nwitnesses who support it and gave no explanation at all for the injuries caused
\nto the other side.  It is his duty to exhibit the counter – complaint in the
\ncourt, and also to prove medical certificates of persons wounded on the opposite
\nside.  The truth in these cases is invariably not in strict conformity with
\neither complaint and it is quite necessary that all the facts are placed before
\nthe court to enable it to arrive at the truth and a just decision.
\n\t(3) If the Investigating Officer finds that the choice of either course is
\ndifficult, viz., to charge one of the two cases or to throw out both, he should
\nseek the opinion of the Public Prosecutor of the district and act accordingly.
\nA final report should be sent in respect of the case referred as mistake of law
\nand the complainant or the counter – complainant as the case may be, should be
\nadvised about the disposal by a notice in Form No.90 and to seek remedy before
\nthe specified Magistrate, if he is aggrieved by the disposal of the case by the
\nPolice.”\n<\/p>\n
\t20. A perusal of the said investigation process would clearly show that
\nwhen there is a case of complaint and counter complaint, the Investigating
\nOfficer should enquire into both the complaints and register the cases and
\nthereafter, investigate into the matter.  Therefore, the Investigating Officer
\nshould consider both the cases and shall not accept one complaint and examine
\nonly the witnesses in support of the said complaint.  Therefore, the bounden
\nduty is cast upon the Investigating Officer to register both the cases and
\nconduct common investigation in both the cases by examining the witnesses in
\npursuance of the said complaints.  Even in a case where the Investigating
\nOfficer finds that one of the two charges will have to be thrown out, he should
\nseek the opinion of the Public Prosecutor and act accordingly.  Thereafter, a
\nfinal report should be sent in support of the case referred as ‘mistake of
\nfact’.\n<\/p>\n
\t21. An important factor to be noted in the present case is that after
\nregistering the complaint of the respondents 2 and 3 in pursuance of the orders
\nof the learned Judicial Magistrate and during the pendency of the contempt
\nproceedings, it was closed on 31.05.2007 itself.  Admittedly, neither the
\nrespondents 2 and 3 nor their witnesses have been examined.  The manner in which
\nthe earlier complaint given by the respondents 2 and 3, has been refused to be
\nregistered and thereafter, suppressed and closed in a hurried manner, speaks
\nvolume of the conduct of the Investigating Officer.\n<\/p>\n
\t22. It is, no doubt, true that this Court will have to shut its eyes on
\nthe documents produced by the respondents 2 and 3.  However, even a perusal of
\nthe said documents would show that how much the Investigating Officer is
\nprejudiced and biased against the respondents 2 and 3.  Most of the documents
\nsuch as  the complaint given by the second respondent, its receipt, injuries
\nnoticed by the learned Judicial Magistrate and the jail authorities at the time
\nof remand, accident registers are not new documents, but  more of public
\nrecords.  The said documents are not disputed and in fact, they must have been
\nproduced by the prosecution itself. An Investigating Officer carries himself
\nwith lot of responsibilities and he supposed to act fairly being a public
\nservant.  There is absolutely no reason as to why he has suppressed the earlier
\ncomplaint and registered the subsequent complaint showing as if the respondents
\n2 and 3 were arrested on the next day morning wherein the complaint had been
\ngiven on the previous day itself.  Even in the judgment in State of Orissa v.
\nDebendra Nath Padhi<\/a> [(2005) 1 Supreme Court Cases 568], the Honourable Apex
\nCourt has considered the power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of
\nCriminal Procedure.  The Honourable Apex Court has observed as follows:
\n\t“29. Regarding the argument of the accused having to face the trial
\ndespite being in a position to produce material of unimpeachable character of
\nsterling quality, the width of the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of
\nthe Code and Article 226 of the Constitution is unlimited whereunder in the
\ninterests of justice the High Court can make such orders as may be necessary to
\nprevent  abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of
\njustice within the parameters laid down in Bhajan Lal case.[1992 Supp (1) SCC
\n335].”\n<\/p>\n
\t23. Therefore, in a case where a grave injustice has been committed, a
\npower under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, need not be invoked
\nby setting aside  an order in order to render substantial justice between the
\nparties.\n<\/p>\n
\t24. In Krishnamoorthi and another v. State [1989 MLJ (Cri) 240], while
\nconsidering the Police Standing Orders, regarding the registration of the
\ncomplaint and counter complaint, the Division Bench of this Court has observed
\nas follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“If the Investigating Officer finds that the choice of either course is
\ndifficult, viz., to charge one of the two cases or to throw out both, he should
\nseek the opinion of the Public Prosecutor of the district and act accordingly.
\nA final report should be sent in respect of the case referred as mistake of law
\nand the complainant or the counter-complainant, as the case may be, should be
\nadvised about the disposal by a  notice<\/p>\n
in Form 96 and to seek remedy before the specified Magistrate, if he is
\naggrieved by the disposal of the case by the police.”\n<\/p>\n
\t25. A similar view was taken by the another Division Bench of this Court
\nin Moorthy and another v. State [2005 M.L.J (Crl.) 191], it is held as follows:
\n\t“22. The above testimony is highly artificial and the prosecution has only
\nmade a vain attempt to show that Basker has sustained injuries in a different
\ntransaction.  Whatever it may be, the settled law is that when the counter
\ncomplaint is given by the accused for the injuries sustained by him in the
\ncourse of the same transaction at the hands of the deceased party, the
\nInvestigation Officer has to investigate both the complaints and then only file
\nfinal report and place all the materials before the Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t23. In the present case, the Investigation Officers, namely, P.W.17
\nInspector Palanivel and P.W.18 Inspector Manavalan have only stated that they
\nconducted investigation in the counter case and referred the same as ‘mistake of
\nfact’ and they have not marked the counter complaint and the referred report in
\nthis case.”\n<\/p>\n
\t26. Applying the ratio of the above said two judgments to the present case
\non hand, this Court is of the opinion that the order passed by the revisional
\nCourt in Crl.R.C.No.24 of 2008 will have to be sustained.\n<\/p>\n
\t27. The learned Counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 submitted that the
\ncase has been foisted against the respondents 2 and 3 by misusing the position
\nof the petitioner’s wife who is a judicial officer.  The learned Counsel for the
\nrespondents 2 and 3 further submitted that the petitioner had a wrong
\napprehension that the respondents 2 and 3 are responsible for the enquiry
\nconducted against the petitioner’s wife.\n<\/p>\n
\t28. This Court is not willing to go into the said allegation made by the
\nlearned Counsel for the respondents 2 and 3.  The said contention of the
\ninvolvement of the petitioner’s wife has not been raised in the discharge
\npetition and moreover, the said person not being a party, the above said
\ncontention cannot be countenanced.\n<\/p>\n
\t27. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
rsb<\/p>\n
TO<\/p>\n
1.The Sub Inspector of Police,
\n  Thoothukudi Vadapagam Police Station,
\n  Thoothukudi District.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
\n  Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.\n<\/p>\n
3.The Fast Track Court No.I, Tuticorin.\n<\/p>\n
4.The Judicial Magistrate, Tuticorin.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court M.V.P.Maharaja vs State Represented By on 12 April, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12\/04\/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH Crl.O.P(MD)No.1218 of 2009 M.V.P.Maharaja … Petitioner\/ Defacto complainant Vs 1.State represented by The Sub Inspector of Police, Thoothukudi Vadapagam Police Station, Thoothukudi District. … 1st Respondent\/ Respondent Complainant […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-232812","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM.V.P.Maharaja vs State Represented By on 12 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-v-p-maharaja-vs-state-represented-by-on-12-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M.V.P.Maharaja vs State Represented By on 12 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-v-p-maharaja-vs-state-represented-by-on-12-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-04-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-31T07:43:46+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"23 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-v-p-maharaja-vs-state-represented-by-on-12-april-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-v-p-maharaja-vs-state-represented-by-on-12-april-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M.V.P.Maharaja vs State Represented By on 12 April, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-31T07:43:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-v-p-maharaja-vs-state-represented-by-on-12-april-2010\"},\"wordCount\":4522,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-v-p-maharaja-vs-state-represented-by-on-12-april-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-v-p-maharaja-vs-state-represented-by-on-12-april-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-v-p-maharaja-vs-state-represented-by-on-12-april-2010\",\"name\":\"M.V.P.Maharaja vs State Represented By on 12 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-31T07:43:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-v-p-maharaja-vs-state-represented-by-on-12-april-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-v-p-maharaja-vs-state-represented-by-on-12-april-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-v-p-maharaja-vs-state-represented-by-on-12-april-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M.V.P.Maharaja vs State Represented By on 12 April, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M.V.P.Maharaja vs State Represented By on 12 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-v-p-maharaja-vs-state-represented-by-on-12-april-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M.V.P.Maharaja vs State Represented By on 12 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-v-p-maharaja-vs-state-represented-by-on-12-april-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-04-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-31T07:43:46+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"23 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-v-p-maharaja-vs-state-represented-by-on-12-april-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-v-p-maharaja-vs-state-represented-by-on-12-april-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M.V.P.Maharaja vs State Represented By on 12 April, 2010","datePublished":"2010-04-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-31T07:43:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-v-p-maharaja-vs-state-represented-by-on-12-april-2010"},"wordCount":4522,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-v-p-maharaja-vs-state-represented-by-on-12-april-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-v-p-maharaja-vs-state-represented-by-on-12-april-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-v-p-maharaja-vs-state-represented-by-on-12-april-2010","name":"M.V.P.Maharaja vs State Represented By on 12 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-31T07:43:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-v-p-maharaja-vs-state-represented-by-on-12-april-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-v-p-maharaja-vs-state-represented-by-on-12-april-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-v-p-maharaja-vs-state-represented-by-on-12-april-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M.V.P.Maharaja vs State Represented By on 12 April, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/232812","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=232812"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/232812\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=232812"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=232812"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=232812"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}