Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The only ground urged on behalf of the petitioners-accused by their learned Counsel, Sri S.A. Razvi is this: The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) of the Cr. P.C. upon receiving a complaint in the form of a protest petition under Section 200 of the Cr. P.C. The said protest petition, however, is not a complaint within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Cr. P.C. Therefore, there was no proper complaint before the learned Magistrate under Section 200 of the Cr. P.C., for taking cognizance, and taking of cognizance on the basis of such document therefore is bad in law.

6. Where a complainant in the very first instance approaches the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 200 of the Cr. P.C. by filing a written complaint and where it is referred to the police under Section 156(3) of the Cr. P.C. and after investigation, 'B' report is submitted, it is well-settled that the protest petition in such a case need not be a rewriting of what all that has been stated in the original complaint earlier filed before the learned Magistrate. A reference in this regard may be made to a decision relied upon by Sri Rajashekar Siri, learned Counsel for the respondent-complainant viz., Ninganagowda and Others v Smt. Shantavva. It was held therein that, it is not necessary to rewrite the same point written in the complaint. That was a case wherein initially a complaint under Section 200 of the Cr. P.C. had been filed, same had been referred under Section 156(3) of the Cr. P.C. for investigation by the police, 'B' report had been submitted after investigation, and then, a protest petition was filed, and it was in respect of such protest petition that this Court said that the same need not be a rewriting of all that had been earlier said. There could, therefore, be no disputing the proposition that where there is already a complaint earlier filed under Section 200 of the Cr. P.C., a protest petition need not be a rewriting of all that has been said earlier.

7. We are however concerned herein with a situation wherein the initial report was not to the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 200 of the Cr. P.C., but, only to the police, and it is on the police investigating into the same and submitting the 'B' report, that the complainant asked the Magistrate to take cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) of the Cr. P.C., on the basis of what he called protest application. The question is whether such a protest application is not required to be in the form of complaint within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Cr. P.C., and whether it will suffice if it is merely in the form of a protest petition such as the one mentioned in the earlier cases referred to above, or to be precise, in a case like the one referred to in Ninganagowda's case, supra. In other words, even if the protest application does not conform to the definition of a 'complaint' in Section 2(d) of the Cr. P.C., whether it can still be construed as such a complaint. Before answering this question, I may first deal with the submission of Sri Rajashekar Siri, learned Counsel for the respondent-complainant that the protest application concerned herein does meet the requirements of Section 2(d) of the Cr. P.C. I have extracted the whole of the protest application above. Since the complainant is asking the Magistrate to take cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) of the Cr. P.C., all references in the protest application extracted above to the 'B' report or to what the Investigating Officer has done etc., would be of no avail to the complainant. The only sentence in the protest application insofar as it is material for application being considered as complaint within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Cr. P.C., is this: "The accused have committed offences punishable under heinous offences". One more sentence relevant in this regard is: "Hence, it is prayed that the 'B' F.R. filed by the police may not be accepted and complainant may be permitted to prove the charges against the accused persons before this Hon'ble Court". As will be presently seen, it would not suffice to merely say that the accused have committed offences. That takes us nowhere, and it will not be possible for the learned Magistrate to apply his mind with regard to taking of cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) of the Cr. P.C. What is required is the acts committed. It is those essential ingredients that are lacking in the protest application concerned. As to how facts necessary for constituting an offence would be essential in a complaint under Section 200 of the Cr. P.C., could be better understood if the relevant provisions are looked into. Section 2(d) of the Cr. P.C. defines 'complaint' as meaning any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under the Code, that some person whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, however, the said complaint does not include a police report. The essential features therefore are that, there should be an allegation made orally or in writing, that it should be before a Magistrate, that the allegation should be that some person known or unknown has committed an offence, and such an application before the Magistrate should have been made with a view to his taking action under the Code. It is such a complaint that Section 200 of the Cr. P.C. speaks of. When Section 200 of the Cr. P.C. speaks of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on such a complaint, it is referring to the taking of cognizance under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 190 of the Cr. P.C. The said Section 190(1)(a) of the Cr. P.C. speaks of the Magistrate taking of cognizance of any offence upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence. In other words, it should be containing facts that constitute such offence, of which, the learned Magistrate is taking cognizance. Unless these essential ingredients are there, there would be no way enabling a Magistrate to take cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) of the Cr. P.C. on a complaint. I am of the opinion that, the mere sentence viz., that the accused have committed offences punishable as heinous offences would not be a complaint of facts which constitute an offence, cognizance of which is being taken by the learned Magistrate under Section 190(1)(a) of the Cr. P.C. There was therefore no complaint under Section 200 of the Cr. P.C. before the learned Magistrate within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Cr. P.C. upon which, the Magistrate could have taken cognizance of an offence under Section 190(1)(a) of the Cr. P.C.

9. From the above, the position that emerges is this: Where initially the complainant has not filed any complaint before the Magistrate under Section 200 of the Cr. P.C., but, has approached the police only and where the police after investigation have filed the 'B' report, if the complainant wants to protest, he is thereby inviting the Magistrate to take cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) of the Cr. P.C. on a complaint. If it were to be so, the protest petition that he files shall have to satisfy the requirements of a complaint as defined in Section 2(d) of the Cr. P.C., and that should contain facts that constitute offence, for which, the learned Magistrate is taking cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) of the Cr. P.C. Instead, if it is to be simply styled as a protest petition without containing all those necessary particulars that a normal complaint has to contain, then, it cannot be construed as a complaint for the purpose of proceeding under Section 200 of the Cr. P.C. That is what has happened in the present case, and in my opinion, the contents of the protest petition do not make the document concerned a complaint within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Cr. P.C.