Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

16. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this order is a direction for taking cognizance of the offence and to proceed with the trial, and therefore, it is not a complaint within the meaning "complaint" as defined in the Code. He has also referred to the order taking cognizance by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia, wherein it has been stated that the case record was received on transfer for further proceeding and disposal and that the perusal of the case record revealed that the instant complaint was filed under Section 340 Cr.PC, by the complainants and the case was endorsed to him by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia, for further proceeding and disposal. In consideration of such order, he had taken cognizance of the offence under Section 211 IPC against the accused respondents. Such facts are apparent from the orders reproduced above. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, makes it clearly appear that he had taken cognizance of the case on the basis of the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, directing him to take cognizance and proceed with the trial without applying his own mind before taking cognizance of the offence. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Surendra Gupta -vs- Bhagw an Devi (Sm t) and Another , reported in (1994) 4 Suprem e Court Cases 657 and submitted that, in the said case, the question for decision was, whether dismissal of the petition under Section 482 Cr.PC was justified on the ground that the impugned order was appealable under Section 341 of the Cr.PC. In the said decision of the Hon'ble Supreme, it has been observed that the right to appeal under Section 341 Cr.PC is conferred against filing of a complaint, and, what is a complaint is clear from Clause (d) of Section 2 of the Cr.PC. But, in the instant petition, under Section 482 Cr.PC, the petitioner has not only challenged the order dated 19.8.2016, referred to above, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia, making the complaint, Crl.Pet.21(AP)/2017 but also the order of taking cognizance by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Yupia, dated 29.11.2016. Therefore, the present petition before this court is not only against making complaint under Section 340 Cr.PC, but also against taking cognizance by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class.

18. As referred to above, the challenge before this court, in the instant petition, is not only the inquiry and the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia, dated 19.8.2016, but also the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, dated 29.11.2016 taking cognizance. As has been stated above, the appeal under Section 341 Cr.PC relates to only the complaint filed under Section 340 Cr.PC and not in respect of taking cognizance by the learned Magistrate on such complaint.

20. Referring to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, let us now see whether the order dated 19.8.2016, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, was a complaint, in writing, or it was, in fact, a Crl.Pet.21(AP)/2017 direction/order to the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class to proceed with the trial. In fact, the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, recorded, prima- facie guilt of the accused person rather than forming an opinion only to file a complaint as required under Section 195 Cr.PC. There is a direction contained therein to take cognizance and to proceed with the trial. However, this order could have been appealed against by the present petitioner under Section 341 Cr.PC as Section 341 provides that only the complaint filed under Section 340 Cr.PC can be appealed against. Appeal, referred to in Section 341 Cr.PC, is not in respect of taking cognizance by the learned Magistrate on the complaint filed under Section 340 of the Cr.PC.

23. There is a case filed by the present petitioner, as informant, before the police, which was charge-sheeted vide Charge-sheet No.21/2014 dated 31.07.2014. There is no materials in the record to show that any proceeding was pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia, in respect of the FIR filed by the present petitioner as informant and subsequent charge- sheet filed by the police against the respondents before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Section 195(b)(i) Cr.PC provides that, "the offence must be alleged to have been committed in or in relation to any proceeding in any Court." There was no proceeding pending in any court at the relevant point of time when the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate proceeded with under Section 340 Cr.PC. That being so, the proceeding under Section 340 could not have been taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. However, the alleged complaint made by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 340 Cr.PC is appealable under Section 341 Cr.PC, as discussed above. But, cognizance taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, could not have been taken, vide his order dated 29.11.2016, as the complaint was not a complaint as defined under Section 2 (d) Cr.PC as specifically discussed above. That being so, the complaint under Section 340 Cr.PC itself is not a complaint within the meaning of "complaint" as defined in Section 2(d) Cr.PC, and therefore, no cognizance could have been taken on such alleged complaint.