Chittaranjan Das vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. on 18 April, 1962
21. There is force in Mr. Das's contention that a report of a Police Officer is not included in the definition of complaint. Because the exclusion made in the definition in Section 4 (1) (h) is not merely of a "Police report" but is of the larger thing the "report of a Police Officer", on the other hand Mr. Gupta Bhaya's contention that a Police Officer instead of making a report may make a petition of complaint finds support in the Division Bench judgment I have already referred to. Even assuming that everything that emanates from a Police Officer is a repon by that Police Officer and so is excluded from the definition of complaint, the only effect thereof, is that in taking cognizance upon such material the learned Magistrate takes cognizance under Section 190 (1) (b) and not under Section 190 (1) (a), Cr. P. C. Even then, as 1 have already mentioned, all proceedings in which cognizance has been taken under Section 190(l)(b) is not a "proceeding instituted upon a Police report". In the present case tne petition upon which cognizance has been taken by tne learned Police Magistrate is not strictly a report under Section 173, Cri. P. C. because it has neither been made by an Officer In charge of any Police station nor is it in trie form prescribed for such a report on completion of investigation under Chapter XIV. It has been suggested during argument before us that by Section 551, Cri. P. C., Police Officers superior in rank may exercise the same powers throughout the local area to which they are appointed as may be exercised fay such officer within the limits of his situation and the present complainant Bamdeb Das as an Inspector of Police had himself conducted an investigation under Chapter XIV and as a result thereof a challan had been submitted in the Court of Presidency Magistrate at Calcutta on the same facts, From all that it has been argued that Bamdeb Das though not an otficer-in-charge- 011 a Police Station must be deemed to be empowered to exercise a function of submitting a "Police report" under Section 173, Cr. P. C. On the materials available on the records in the present case, however, it cannot be said that Bamdeb Das, an Inspector of Police of the Enforcement Branch, Calcutta is an officer superior in rank to an officer-in-charge of a Police Station in 24-Parganas. Moreover, even if he were so, Section 551, Cr. P. C. does not compel but only empowers exercise of powers. It has been held by this Court in the case of Emperor v. Maturanath De , that 'may1 in Section 551, Cr. P. C. does not mean "must". A superior Police Offices who is empowered and enjoined with the duty of submitting a "Police report" upon completion of an investigation under Chapter XIV to a Magistrate having territorial jurisdiction is not, in my view, disabled by any provision in the Code from lodging a petition of complaint to another Magistrate in another district having territorial jurisdiction in respect of different offences although such other offences may be alleged to have been committed by the same persons arising out of same set of facts. It was therefore possible to think that the petition that was tired by Bamdeb Das in the Court of Police Magistrate, 24 Parganas could not strictly be a "Police report" under Section 173, Cr. P. C. and that the present proceeding is not "a proceeding instituted upon a Police report" within me meaning of Section 207 (a) and 207-A, Cr. P. C. Even if that petition cannot be a 'complaint' within the definition of Section 4(l)[h), Cr. P. C. it could be taken to be a "proceeding instituted otherwise than on a Police report" within the meaning of Section 208, Cr. P. C. One cannot overlook that the particular language used in Section 208, Cr. P. C. by the Parliament is not a "proceeding instituted upon a complaint" but is "proceeding instituted otherwise than on a Police report." In Section 417 (3) introduced by the same amendment the phrase "case Instituted upon a complaint" has been used. Significance of the particular language occurring not only in Section 208 but also in Section 252 and the language used in Section 417 (3), Cr. P. C. lends support to the view that although cognizance is taken in a particular case under Section 190 (1) (b), Cr. P. c. it may not be "a proceeding instituted upon a Police report" and may be "a proceeding instituteo: otherwise than on a Police report, according to the strict view of law.