CRL RC/528/2026 of S.Pragadeeswaran Vs A.Saminathan on 22 September 2026

ORDER

The Criminal Revision challenges the order of the learned District Munsif – Cum – Judicial Magistrate, Madukkarai, in Crl.M.P.No.1825 of 2024 dated 29.12.2025, taking cognizance on the complaint given by the respondent and committing the case to the Court of Sessions by invoking the power under Section 323 of the Criminal Procedure Code/Section 362 of BNSS.

2. The Criminal Revision arises under the following circumstances:

a) The petitioners had lodged a complaint against the respondent and his father, Mr. K. Arusamy, for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) of the IPC, alleging that on 05.04.2023 at about 4.30 p.m., the respondent and his father, Mr. K.Arusamy in the presence of Electricity

Board officials, on account of the prior enmity, had abused the petitioners in filthy language and had caused injury on the head of the first petitioner with an iron rod and attempted to cause injury with knife on the second petitioner as well; and that the head injury on the first petitioner was found to be grievous. A case was registered in Crime No.101 of 2023.

(b) . The complaint of the petitioners was investigated, and a final report was filed alleging the offences under Sections 294(b), 326 and 307 of the IPC against the respondent and the offences under Sections 294(b) and 307 r/w 34 against his father. The case was thereafter committed to the Court of Sessions and is now pending trial in S.C.No.79 of 2025.

(c) . The respondent also lodged a complaint, which was received in C.S.R.No.122 of 2023, on 06.04.2023 at about 11.00 a.m. The case of the respondent was closed as a mistake of fact on 13.06.2023.

(d) . It is the case of the respondent that after he was released on bail, he made an application under RTI to ascertain the status of the complaint, and he came to know from the RTI reply dated 04.08.2023 that his complaint was closed on 13.06.2023. Hence, he filed a private complaint, which was taken cognizance and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions to be tried along with the case instituted at the instance of the petitioners in S.C.No.79 of 2025.

(e) . The petitioners have preferred the above revision challenging the said order.

3. Mr.N.Manokaran, the learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that the learned Magistrate had not considered the statements of witnesses recorded by the investigating officer, which clearly disclose that the respondent and his father were the aggressors; that the impugned complaint was filed nearly eight months after the respondent came to know that his case was closed as “mistake of fact"; that the complaint filed by the respondent is only a counterblast with a view to harass the petitioners; that the injuries suffered by the petitioners have not been explained in his complaints; and that the respondent had only stated in the first complaint that he was pushed and attacked with hands, whereas, in the impugned complaint, he alleged that he was attacked with an iron rod, and therefore, the order taking cognizance and committing to the Court of Sessions is liable to be set aside.

4. Mr.S.Agilesh Kumar, the learned counsel for the respondent, per contra, submitted that the police are bound to investigate the case in a fair manner and are bound to place the records relating to both the cases before the Court; that the Police had suppressed the complaint of the respondent; and that the points raised by the petitioners that the offences are not made out as there are contradictions and there is a delay in the complaint are all matters to be adjudicated only during the trial and therefore, the impugned order cannot be faulted.

5. As stated earlier, the FIR was lodged in Crime No.101 of 2023, on the complaint given by the petitioners. The police had received the complaint of the respondent in C.S.R.No.122 of 2023. The respondent had stated in his complaint that the petitioners had attacked him with hands, pushed him down, and kicked him with their legs; that therefore, he had sustained abrasions on his back and in the left wrist; that he was admitted to the hospital on 05.04.2023 and had taken treatment.

6. The respondent was arrested on 06.04.2023 at about 06.45 p.m. and was produced for remand before the learned Magistrate at 9.30 p.m. At the time of remand, the learned Magistrate had noted that there were no external injuries on the respondent and he had a “small abrasion on his left hand.”

7. The respondent in the complaint lodged before the learned Magistrate had stated that after he was released on bail, he sought for the status of his complaint on 12.06.2023 by invoking RTI Act; and that he was informed by the reply on 04.08.2023 that his complaint was closed on 13.06.2023.

8. The respondent had not chosen to either challenge the closure report or file the private complaint immediately. For reasons best known, he waited till 13.03.2024 to lodge a private complaint. The complaint that he had lodged runs to about fifteen pages. The version in the complaint is totally contrary to his earlier complaint, which was registered in C.S.R.No.122 of 2023. In that complaint, he had not stated anything about the alleged weapon used by the petitioners. However, in the private complaint, upon which the learned Magistrate, has taken cognizance of certain offences, he would state that the first petitioner had picked up an iron rod and attempted to attack the respondent, and when he tried to resist, he was injured near his right eye and had a contusion under his eye.

9. The entries in the accident register do not indicate any contusion injury under the right eye. Further, the respondent had informed the doctor that he was assaulted with hands. The wound certificate also does not indicate any contusion under the eye. Therefore, it is clear that in the present complaint lodged under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., the respondent has come with an exaggerated version by stating that a weapon was used, which is contrary to his earlier version, and by also stating that he suffered a contusion injury near his right eye, which is also not supported by any medical record and is contrary to his earlier complaint.

10. The police in their closure report after considering the evidence on record found that the respondent and his father were the aggressors and the complaint of the respondent is an afterthought, only to counter the complaint filed by the petitioners.

11. It is also seen that the petitioners, especially the first petitioner, had sustained a grievous injury, which is not in dispute. The complaint does not also explain how the first petitioner sustained a grievous injury. The statements of the officials from the Electricity Board, in whose presence the occurrence is said to have taken place, who are independent persons, would confirm the version of the petitioners that the petitioners were attacked by an iron rod.

12. Though some of the points that we have found are usually matters for trial, considering the nature of exaggeration in the subsequent complaint, the delay in filing the complaint, the report of the police, and the statements of witnesses collected by the police in Cr.No.101 of 2023, indicate that the complaint is clearly malafide and is an afterthought. Hence, it it would not be proper to subject the petitioner to trial. The respondent had only abrasion injuries, which are said to have happened during the scuffle, and he and his father were found to be the aggressors. Therefore, this Court finds no infirmity in the conclusion of the police that the complaint does not require investigation, as it is only a counterblast to the complaint of the petitioners.

13. Therefore, the impugned order taking cognizance of the complaint and committing the case to Sessions Court is hereby set aside, and the petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 22-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No dk

SUNDER MOHAN, J. dk Pre-delivery order in CRL RC No. 528 of 2026 and Crl.M.P.No.4024 of 2026 22-09-2026