Injured Wife Is Sterling Witness — Her Identification Of Husband As Assailant Needs No Corroboration: Allahabad High Court Four Years in Custody, 359 Witnesses Pending, Trial Could Take Decades: Delhi HC Grants Bail to UAPA Accused Charged as "Hybrid Cadres" Prosecution's Fatal Mistake: Not Examining the Only Child Witness Who Saw the Accused — Madras High Court Acquits Murder Accused Co-sharers Entitled To Same Land Compensation As Other Owners Even If No Reference Filed Under Section 18 Or 28-A: Punjab & Haryana HC PIL Filed To Settle Personal Scores Cannot Hide Behind Public Interest: Rajasthan High Court Bars Petitioner From Filing Any PIL In Future Section 482 CrPC Petition Not Maintainable Against Special NIA Court's Refusal To Discharge, Remedy Lies In Statutory Appeal: Allahabad High Court Rs. 57,000 Per Acre Award Inadequate for Fertile Commercial Land: AP High Court Enhances Compensation to Rs. 3.50 Lakh, Raises Tree Values Election Petition Must Plead Material Facts, Not Mere Allegations: Bombay High Court Rejects Challenge To Chandivali MLA’s Election Son Of Deceased Tenant Cannot Claim Statutory Protection Beyond 5 Years Under West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act: Calcutta High Court Daughter Cannot Claim Mewar Estate Through Intestacy Petition While Disputing Will: Delhi High Court Dismisses Padmaja Kumari Parmar's Petition in Mewar Royal Family Succession Battle Cabinet Cannot Spend First and Seek Sanction Later: Kerala High Court Halts ₹20 Crore ‘Nava Keralam’ Programme Incorporation Under the Companies Act Does Not Confer Immunity Against an Action in Passing Off: Madras HC POCSO | School Records Prevail Over Ossification Test For Age Determination Of Minor Victim: Madhya Pradesh High Court A Buyer Who Runs Away From the Tehsil Without Paying Cannot Later Sue to Register the Sale Deed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Encroacher Cannot Claim Forest Rights by Calling Himself a Traditional Dweller: Madras High Court LIC Agent Certified Cancer Patient's Health As 'Good' Without Meeting Him: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Termination Property Bought From Crime Proceeds Before PMLA Came Into Force Can Still Be Attached If Possessed After: Delhi High Court Overturns Single Judge Co-Employee Cannot Play Watchdog Over Colleague's Dismissal Order — Allahabad High Court Shuts the Door on Third-Party Service Appeals

Absence of Receipts No Barrier to Justice: Madras High Court Orders Theft Complaint Referral Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C

12 January 2025 5:34 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


In a notable judgment, the Madras High Court has directed the Judicial Magistrate of Sathankulam to refer a theft complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. without insisting on the provision of receipts for the stolen items. This ruling by Justice B. Pugalendhi emphasizes that the absence of purchase receipts should not hinder the process of referring a legitimate complaint to the police for investigation.
The petitioner, Shanthi, filed a complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking a preliminary inquiry into the theft of a motor pump set and wires from her agricultural land. The learned Judicial Magistrate of Sathankulam had returned her application citing several deficiencies, including the absence of a process memo, non-affixation of stamps on xerox copies, lack of documents regarding the stolen property, and an unclear prayer against all accused persons.
Shanthi claimed that she had complied with all conditions except for providing receipts for the stolen items, as she did not possess any such documentation. Despite her explanation, the Magistrate did not forward her complaint, prompting her to file a criminal original petition to the High Court.
The High Court noted that while the Magistrate’s role includes verifying whether a prima facie offense is established, the absence of receipts alone should not prevent the referral of the complaint for police inquiry. Justice Pugalendhi observed, “The motor pump set and wires have been stolen from the petitioner’s agricultural land. However, she is not having any receipts for the same. On this score alone, reference under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. cannot be denied.”
The court underscored the importance of assessing the complaint based on its merits rather than strictly adhering to procedural requirements that could unjustly obstruct justice. The judge stated, “The learned Judicial Magistrate, Sathankulam, while dealing with an application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, has to ascertain whether prima facie offense is made out or not.”
Justice Pugalendhi emphasized that the essence of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is to ensure that legitimate complaints are investigated, even in the absence of formal documentation. He instructed the Magistrate to refer Shanthi’s complaint to the concerned police officer for an inquiry and to ascertain the occurrence of any offense based on the available evidence and circumstances.
“The motor pump set and wires have been stolen from the petitioner’s agricultural land. However, she is not having any receipts for the same. On this score alone, reference under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. cannot be denied,” stated Justice B. Pugalendhi. He further added, “It can be referred to the police officer concerned for conducting an enquiry and to ascertain whether any offense has been made out and thereafter, a case shall be registered.”
The Madras High Court’s decision to allow the petition and direct the Magistrate to refer the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. highlights the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring that procedural technicalities do not impede access to justice. This judgment sets a significant precedent for handling similar cases, reinforcing that the absence of documentation should not bar the investigation of genuine complaints.

 

Date of Decision: 16.07.2024
 

Latest Legal News