Failure to Cooperate Doesn’t Bar Right to Justice — Madras High Court Restores Petition Seeking Police Action on Assault Complaint

“Even if the petitioner failed to appear earlier, once prima facie material exists, the police must enquire and proceed in accordance with law.” - In a significant decision reaffirming the importance of due process in criminal jurisprudence, the Madras High Court set aside the order of a Magistrate Court which had dismissed a petition under Section 156(3) CrPC due to the non-appearance of the complainant. Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan ruled that if the complaint discloses a prima facie cognizable offence, then non-cooperation by the complainant at an earlier stage cannot be the basis to shut down further enquiry.

The Court directed the Inspector of Police, Vellimedupettai, to issue notice to the accused party, conduct an enquiry, and register an FIR if an offence is disclosed.

The petitioner, P. Arunachalam, had lodged a complaint on 20.04.2024, alleging that during an election-related dispute, he was abused in filthy language and physically assaulted, causing injuries. Despite submitting a written complaint to the police, no FIR was registered, prompting the petitioner to move the Judicial Magistrate, Tindivanam, under Section 156(3) CrPC seeking directions for registration of FIR.

The Magistrate initially directed the police to conduct an enquiry. However, the police reported that the petitioner was not cooperating. Eventually, when the petitioner failed to appear again at the time of hearing, the Magistrate dismissed the petition on 09.12.2024 for non-prosecution.

Setting aside the Magistrate's dismissal, Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan observed:

“Upon perusal of the complaint lodged by the petitioner, this Court is of the view that sufficient materials are available to make out a prima facie case warranting an enquiry.”

The Court clarified that denial of access to justice based merely on earlier procedural lapse—especially when the complaint reveals cognizable offences—would be unjustified.

“In order to give one more opportunity to the petitioner, the order passed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside.”

Directions Issued:

The High Court issued specific directions to ensure fair process:

“The petitioner is directed to appear before the first respondent within a period of two weeks… Thereafter, the first respondent is directed to issue notice to the counter party and conduct enquiry.”

It was also made clear that:

“During enquiry, if any material is available to constitute any offence, the first respondent is directed to register FIR and proceed in accordance with law.”

By doing so, the Court preserved the balance between procedural diligence and the substantive right to seek redress for criminal wrongs.

This judgment reinforces the principle that criminal justice cannot be denied merely due to technical or procedural lapses by a complainant, particularly where the allegations point to cognizable offences. The High Court’s approach in restoring the petition and ordering a fresh enquiry ensures both fairness and accountability, while reiterating that failure to appear cannot extinguish the right to an effective remedy.

Date of Decision: 1 July 2025