Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. Learned Counsel Sri C.V.Nagesh for the respondents contended that Section 2(d) Cr.P.C enables any person to file a complaint and it must contain the specific allegations and on such complaint, the Magistrate gets jurisdiction to deal with it. The complaint must contain and disclose a cognizable or a non-cognizable offence to take action in the matter. If the complaint discloses a cognizable offence, then action has to be taken under Section 190 Cr.P.C and the procedure laid down under Section 200 Cr.P.C has to be followed. If the learned Magistrate forms an opinion that the complaint discloses a non-cognizable offence, he may refer the matter under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C for investigation. Learned Counsel has further contended that Section 156(1) Cr-P.C. empowers the police officer to register a case as provided under Section 154 Cr.P.C. whereas Section 156(3) Cr.P.C provides for the Magistrate to direct investigation in respect of cognizable offences. Further Section 202 Cr.P.C also provides for a direction, may be, in relation to cognizable or non-cognizable offences and contended that Section 155(2) Cr.P.C is only in respect of non- cognizable offences, Section 156(3) Cr.P.C for cognizable offences and Section 202(2) Cr.P.C in respect of both offences after taking cognizance by the Court. Learned Counsel further submitted that the order of the learned Magistrate is dated 11.2.2003 referring the matter to the High Grounds Police Station for investigation and report. The order does not say for investigation and report. If the complaint discloses an offence, the police officer is bound to register a case in respect of cognizable offence as provided under Section 154 Cr.P.C and investigate under Section 156(1) Cr.P.C. In the present case, the complaint itself did not disclose whether it is a cognizable or a non-cognizable offence. Therefore, the Inspector submitted the report. It is thereafter, notice was issued to the Complainant. He having appeared filed his objections and requested the Court to refer the matter under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C for investigation of a non-cognizable offence. It is after hearing both sides, the impugned order came to be passed. In the present case, the question of providing an opportunity to prove the case of the complainant also does not arise as no cognizance was taken by the Court as required under Section 190 Cr.P.C. When once the cognizance is not taken, the question of considering the request of the complainant to refer the matter again under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C does not arise. When the learned Additional C.M.M has not chosen to take cognizance and dismissed the complaint in limine as the complaint did not disclose any offence, the order of the learned C.M.M does not suffer from any infirmities and justified the impugned order.

c) While passing order of direction to the SHO for investigation, this Hon'ble Court has not used any Section either 155(2) of Cr.P.C or 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. This being so, the order is an order by the competent Court to the SHO to investigate into the complaint referred to him. By returning back the complaint the SHO has violated the provisions of Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C. 8. For all the aforesaid reasons, the report dated03.03.2003 submitted by the SHO deserves to be rejected.

HENCE IT IS HUMBLY PRAYED That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to reject the report of the SHO and redirect the SHO Under Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C to register the case and investigate into the complaint and report to this Hon'ble Court and initiate contempt of Court proceedings against the SHO in the interest of justice

15. It is in respect of cognizable offences, Sub-section (1) of Section 154 Cr.P.C enables the Station House Officer to make an entry regarding the substance of such information and there upon proceed to investigate the matter.

16. Section 155 Cr.P.C reads thus:

"155. Information as to non- cognizable cases and investigation of such cases,-(1) When information is given to an officer in charge of a police station of the commission within the limits of such station of a non-cognizable offence, he shall enter or cause to be entered the substance of the information in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf and refer the informant to the Magistrate.

It enables the SHO to make an entry of the substance of an information in respect of a non-cognizable offence. Sub-Section (2) enables the Investigating Officer to proceed with the investigation in respect of a non-cognizable offence with the order of the Magistrate.

17. Though the matter came to be referred to the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, as the complaint did not disclose as to whether the offence is one of cognizable or non- ognizable, the Investigating Officer has submitted a report. It is also pertinent to note that after the report was submitted, the complainant requested the learned VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City, for referring the matter under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Thus it is very well within the knowledge of the complainant that the offence is one of non- cognizable in nature. But to refer the matter under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C, the Court should satisfy itself whether the complainant has pleaded sufficient material facts so as to constitute a non-cognizable offence. The complaint is filed for the offence under Section 120B r/w 34 IPC. The offence under Section 120B IPC is either it may become cognizable or non-cognizable depending upon the main offence alleged. It is well settled position of law that for the offence under Section 120B IPC, the accused persons can be punished independently provided if it is established what is the main offence committed. At this stage, it has to be examined whether the decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel Sri F.V.Patil are applicable to the facts of this case or not.