Kerala High Court
N.K. Mohanraj vs Kandran Rajeev on 5 August, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1999CRILJ824
ORDER P.V. Narayanan Nambiar, J.
1. Annexure-III complaint, C.C. No. 718/95 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thalassery is sought to be quashed by the accused.
2. An information was laid by the complainant before the Cannanore Town Police Station on 21-4-94 alleging commission of a crime, against the petitioner. Crime No. 278/94 was registered by the Cannanore Town Police under Sections 143, 147, 323, 365 read with Section 149, IPC. The FIR was re-registered in the Thalassery Police Station as Crime No. 232/94. After investigation final report was filed under Section 173(2), Cr. P.C. before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thalassery by referring the case as false. But report was filed against the complainant alleging an offence punishable under Section 182, IPC which was taken cognizance as C.C. No. 376/94. The final report in Crime No. 232/94 referring the case as false was accepted by the Court without notice to the informant. Hence he filed a protest complaint on 8-12-94 alleging an offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 341, 506(2), 365 read with Section 149, IPC against the accused. The complainant has stated in the complaint that notice issued by the police under Sections 157(2) and 173(1)(b) Cr. P.C. was received by the complainant on 5-12-94.
3. In the course of argument counsel for the petitioner pressed the point that the protest complaint should not have been taken on file as the complainant did not challenge the acceptance of the final report filed by the police in Crime No. 232/94.
4. It is mandatory that before acceptance of the final report filed by the police referring the case the Court is obliged to issue notice to the complainant/informant before accepting the report. This position is made clear in the decision reported in Bhagwant Singh v. Commr. of Police (1985) 2 S.C.C. 537 : 1985 Cri LJ 1521. From a reading of the judgment it is clear that the complainant is entitled to the notice before acceptance of the final report by the Court referring a case. This view has been reiterated in the decision reported in Union Public Service Commission v. S. Papaiah 1997 SCC (Cri) 1112 : 1997 Cri LJ 4636. This Court in Vijayan v. Fauziya Hassan (1997) 1 Ker LT 55 has also highlighted this point and held that before acceptance of the final report by the Court the complainant/informant is entitled to notice. It is also held therein that issuance of notice to the informant by the Investigating agency is not a substitute for notice required to be given by the Magistrate. From the dictum laid down in the above decisions it is clear that the non-issuance of the notice to the complainant/informant vitiates the order of acceptance of the final report by the Court.
5. The protest complaint is filed in this background. In the complaint it is stated that the investigation in the case was not proper and it was only a farce. The complainant stated that he has no belief in the Thalassery Police who conducted the investigation. He also stated that he has got witness and he is prepared to prove the offence without the aid of the police.
6. Relying on the decision reported in P.V. Krishna Prasad v. K.V.N. Koteswara Rao 1991 Cri LJ 341 it was argued by the counsel for the petitioner that as no objection was taken by the complainant regarding the acceptance of the final report by the Court, protest complainant is not maintainable on the same set of facts. I am afraid that I cannot accept this contention. The protest complaint should be taken as an objection raised by the complainant against the acceptance of the final report. It is specifically stated by the complainant that the investigation was a farce and conducted in order to help the accused. It is also stated therein that the investigation is one sided. The fact of filing the protest complaint can be taken as an objection to the acceptance of the final report though he has not filed a separate application objecting the same. The Court which took the protest complaint on file evidently took the complaint as his objection to the acceptance of the final report or else it would not have taken cognizance of the offence alleged in the protest complaint. In the circumstances there is no legal impediment in the complainant filing the protest complaint alleging commission of an offence. Hence the complaint cannot be quashed on that ground.
7. Other grounds as well were brought to my notice by the counsel for the petitioner and prayed for quashing the complaint. I am not dealing with the same in detail. Suffice to say those grounds highlighted by the petitioner are not sufficient to quash the complaint. It is up to the petitioner to take those contentions in the Court below at the appropriate stage.
8. In the circumstances, prayer of the petitioner for quashing the complaint cannot be allowed. Hence the prayer is rejected.
The Crl. M.C. is accordingly dismissed.