Madras High Court
R.Murugadoss Alias Murugan vs State Through on 1 August, 2012
Author: A.Selvam
Bench: A.Selvam
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01/08/2012 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.408 of 2008 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1 of 2008 R.Murugadoss alias Murugan .. Petitioner/ Sole accused Vs. 1.State through The Sub Inspector of Police, Police DCB Crime, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. (Crime No.38 of 2007). .. Respondent/ Complainant 2.V.Sagisth Kumar 3.P.S.Ramesh Babu 4.S.Jeyadoss .. Respondents/ Complainants Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying to call for the entire records and quash the same in Crime No.38 of 2007 on the file of the respondent police (Sub-Inspector of Police, DCB Crime, Nagercoi, Kanyakumari District). !For Petitioner ... Mr.P.Appavu Rathinam ^For Respondent No.1... Mr.P.Kandasamy, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) For Respondents ... Mr.A.Dennison 2 to 4 (No appearance) :ORDER
This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying to quash the First Information Report registered in Crime No.38 of 2007, pending on the file of the first respondent.
2. It is stated in the petition that the respondents 2 to 4 as complainants have given the First Information Report to the first respondent and the same has been registered in Crime No.38 of 2007 under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, wherein the petitioner has been shown as sole accused. Further it is stated in the petition that the respondents 2 to 4 have approached the petitioner only for getting post of cleaning labourers in a foreign country and further it is stated in the petition that the respondents 2 to 4 have not applied for the post of waiters in five star hotels. Further the First Information Report in question has been jointly given by the respondents 2 to 4 and the same has been registered in Crime No.38 of 2007 and therefore the same is not legally maintainable and under the said circumstances, the present petition has been filed for getting the relief sought for therein.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has advanced his arguments on the following grounds:
(a) The respondents 2 to 4 have approached the petitioner for getting employment in a foreign country as cleaning labourers and in the First Information Report, it has been erroneously stated that the petitioner has promised to get post of waiters to the respondents 2 to 4 and therefore the First Information Report registered in Crime No.38 of 2007 is liable to be quashed.
(b) The respondents 2 to 4 have jointly given the complaint in question in Crime No.38 of 2007 and the same is not legally maintainable and on that ground also the First Information Report registered in Crime No.38 of 2007 is liable to quashed.
4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the first respondent has contended that on the side of the respondents 2 to 4 plenty of documents have been produced for the purpose of saying that they have been sent to a foreign country at the instance of the petitioner only for the post of waiters, but they have not been given such kind of posts and therefore the petitioner has cheated the respondents 2 to 4 and under the said circumstances the First Information Report in question has been registered in Crime No.38 of 2007 under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and the first respondent has been doing proper investigation and under the said circumstances the First Information Report in question need not be quashed.
5. Before considering the rival submissions made on either side, the Court has to look into the provisions of Sections 154, 190 and also Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
6. Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 reads as follows:
"Information in cognizable cases.- (1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in-charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf. (2) A copy of the information as recorded under sub-section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant.
(3) Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in-charge of a police station to record the information referred to in sub-section (1) may sent the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in-charge of the police station in relating to that offence".
7. Section 190 of the said Code reads as follows:
"Cognizance of offences by Magistrates.- (1) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, any Magistrate of the first class, and any Magistrate of the second class specially empowered in this behalf under sub-section (2), may take cognizance of any offence-
(a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence;
(b) upon a police report of such facts;
(c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his knowledge, that such offence has been committed. (2) The Chief Judicial Magistrate may empower any Magistrate of the second class to take cognizance under sub-section (1) of such offences as are within his competence to inquire into or try".
8. Section 200 of the said Code reads as follows:
"Examination of complainant.- A Magistrate taking cognizable of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses and also by the Magistrate:
Provided that, when the complaint is made in writing, the Magistrate need not examine the complainant and the witnesses-
(a) if a public servant acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties or a Court has made the complaint; or
(b) if the Magistrate makes over the case for inquiry or trial to another Magistrate under Section 192:
Provided further if the Magistrate makes over the case to another Magistrate under Section 192 after examining the complainant and the witnesses, the latter Magistrate need not re-examine them".
9. From a cumulative reading of the said Sections referred to supra, it is made clear that under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, an information can be given to police so as to investigate particular offence mentioned therein, whereas under Sections 190 and 200 of the said Code, a person can give complaint to the concerned Magistrate. Therefore a vital distinction is in existence in between the information given under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and complaint refers to in Sections 190 and 200 of the said Code.
10. In the instant case, the respondents 2 to 4 have given the First Information Report under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to the first respondent and the same has been registered in Crime No.38 of 2007. Therefore strictly speaking that the information given by the respondents 2 to 4 under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is not at all a complaint. To put it in short, it is nothing but an information which enables the concerned police to set the law in motion with regard to alleged offence(s).
11. The main contention putforth on the side of the petitioner is that the respondents have jointly given the complaint in question and the same has been registered in Crime No.38 of 2007 and therefore the same is not legally maintainable.
12. It has already been distinguished that an information given under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is not at all a complaint and the same is nothing, but an intimation which enables the concerned police to set the law in motion. Further, there is no embargo in Section 154 to the effect that such kind of information should not be given by two or more persons. Therefore it is quite clear that the legal contention putforth on the side of the petitioner cannot be accepted.
13. In order to fortify the stand taken by this Court, it would be apropos to look into the following decisions:
(a) In Shital Chandra Datta v. Babu Ram Jodaun and others reported in AIR 1967 Allahabad 150, it is held that there is nothing in the Code to suggest that a complaint must be made by one person only and Section 200 refers to a "complainant" in the singular, but by applying the provisions of S.13 of the General Clauses Act, the word has to be interpreted to mean "complainants' also and there is nothing in the Act to deter this interpretation.
(b) In Abdul Karim and another v. Nangoo and another reported in A.I.R.(29)1942 Oudh 407, it is held that joint complaint by two persons is valid and examination of complainants one after another without delay is substantial compliance with Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
(c) In Zac Poonen v. Hidden Treasure Literature Incorporated in Canada and another reported in 2002 Crl.L.J. 481, Karnataka, it is held that joint complaint is legally maintainable under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, but however with regard to different cause of action joint complaint is not maintainable.
(d) In Mohd. Yousuf v. Smt. Afaq Jahan & Anr. reported in 2006 Crl.L.J.788 (SC), it is observed that there is no particular format of complaint and a petition addressed to the Magistrate containing an allegation that an offence has been committed, and ending with a prayer that the culprits be suitably dealt with, as in the instant case, is a complaint.
(e) In Bhimappa Bassappa Bhu Sannavar v. Laxman Shivarayappa Samagouda and others reported in AIR 1970 Supreme Court 1153, the Hon'ble Larger Bench of the Apex Court has observed that the word 'complaint' has a wide meaning since it includes even an oral application and it may therefore, be assumed that no form is prescribed which the complaint must take and it may only be said that there must be an allegation which prima facie discloses the commission of an offence with the necessary facts for the Magistrate to take action.
14. From the conjoint reading of the said decisions referred to earlier, it is easily discernible that a complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can be made more than one person with regard to same cause of action and further it is made clear that in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or Criminal Rules of Practice, there is no format with regard to complaint to be given under the said Section. Further the word complainant refers to in Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 includes plural as per Section 13 of the General Clauses Act.
15. In the instant case, it has already been pointed out that the information alleged to have been given by the respondents 2 to 4 is not at all a complaint and the same is nothing, but an information so as to enable the first respondent to set the law in motion. Therefore it goes without saying that the legal contention putforth on the side of the petitioner is of no use.
16. The first and foremost contention putforth on the side of the petitioner is that the respondents 2 to 4 have applied only for the post of cleaning labourers. But in the First Information Report it has been erroneously stated that the petitioner made arrangements for getting post of waiters in five star hotels.
17. As rightly pointed out on the side of the first respondent, this Court has perused certain documents so as to prove that the respondents 2 to 4 have applied for the post of house keeping and cleaning executives. Considering the fact that rival documents are available, the stand taken on the side of the petitioner can be decided only after taking rival evidence. Therefore the factual aspect putforth on the side of the petitioner cannot be decided now. Under the said circumstances viewing from any angle, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
18. In fine, this petition deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.
smn To
1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Police DCB Crime, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.