Skip to content


P.A. Nallaperumal Vs. P.R. Muthaiah - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1973CriLJ541
AppellantP.A. Nallaperumal
RespondentP.R. Muthaiah
Excerpt:
- .....that averments in the complaint petition make out an offence under section 211 i.p.c., prima facie alone. the disposal of this petition shall not be construed to the prejudice of the accused nellaperumal. with these observations, the petition is dismissed.
Judgment:
ORDER

K.N. Mudaliyar, J.

1. The petitioner seeks to revise the order of the District Magistrate, Tirunelveli, passed in Crl.M.P. No. 182 of 1972 rejecting the preliminary ground raised in the said petition that the offence might fall under Section 182 I.P.C. and not under Section 211 I.P.C. From the averments in the complaint it is seen that the present petitioner (Nellaperumal) sent a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli, at Palayamcottai falsely charging the complainant with having intimidated him and threatened to shoot him with a revolver in his possession. Mr. Martin, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, argued that the language of Section 211 would require the registration of the complaint, investigation following the registration of the first information report and a referred notice to the complainant Nellaperumal. I do not think that there is any warrant or basis for such an argument in the light of the terms of Section 211 I.P.C. All that this section requires is the proof of (1) intention to cause injury to any person and (2) initiation of any criminal proceeding against the respondent herein. The other ingredient seems to be false charge against the respondent Muthiah with having committed an of-fence knowing that there is no lust or lawful ground for such proceeding or 'charge. The petitioner knows best what he has complained against Muthiah in the complaint sent by him to the police authorities on 3.10.1971. It was open to Him to either produce a copy of the complaint or to summon the original Complaint petition sent by him, and on the basis of the averments found therein it was open to him to have contended that the offence might fall under Section 182 I.P.C. rather than under Section 211 I.P.C. He has not chosen to do so. This Court, as was the case with the trial Court, is left with the averments in the complaint filed by Muthiah. The averments contained in paragraph 5 of the complaint petition filed by Muthiah would prima facie make out an offence under Section 211 I.P.C. In fairness to the accused, I am saying that this observation of mine would not fetter the trial court in coming to the conclusion that the offence might be one under Section 182 I.P.C. for, I have stated that averments in the complaint petition make out an offence under Section 211 I.P.C., prima facie alone. The disposal of this petition shall not be construed to the prejudice of the accused Nellaperumal. With these observations, the petition is dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //