Judgment :- 1. This is a petition filed by the 8 accused persons in C. C. 30 of 1980 on the file of the Additional Judicial 1st Class Magistrate, Palghat to quash the complaint 2. It appears one Machayya, the then Superintendent of the Karappara Estate, Nelliyampathi in Palghat District gave information at the Nenmara Police Station, of an occurrence of house breaking and theft of cardamom said to have taken place from the estate building on 29-4-1979. A case was registered as Crime No. 93 of 1979 and after investigation, it was referred as mistake of fact. 10 months after the occurrence, the present first respondent who is described as an office clerk in the Karappara Estate, filed a private complaint before the same court in regard to the same occurrence The petitioners want the complaint to be quashed. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant has no locus standi to lay the complaint, that the estate is under the management of the receivers and therefore the receivers alone can lay complaint, that the complaint having been filed beyond 14 days, that is, the period contemplated in refer notice in Form No.95 of the Criminal Rules of Practice (T.C. State) the complaint is not maintainable. Even otherwise the complaint is belated and devoid of bona fides. 4. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place in an estate building, the subject matter of the occurence being cardamom belonging to the estate. The offences alleged are those under S.457 and 380 of the I.P.C. both of them being cognizable offences. The first information was lodged not by the estate manager or by the receivers in charge of the estate but only by an employee of the estate who described himself as superintendent of the estate. If the superintendent of the estate can give information to the police on the basis of which a case can be registered, I fail to see why or how a clerk in the estate cannot move either the police or the court in an appropriate case. The complainant here is not a wayfarer or stranger. He is an official working in the estate. I do not think his competency to lodge the complaint can be seriously questioned. It is admitted that the estate is under management of two receivers appointed by the court. The complainant here is not a wayfarer or stranger. He is an official working in the estate. I do not think his competency to lodge the complaint can be seriously questioned. It is admitted that the estate is under management of two receivers appointed by the court. My attention has not been invited to any provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure or of any other law requiring prior sanction of the court to lodge the complaint. The Code also does not contain any provision requiring receivers to lay complaints personally. It is brought to my notice that according to the allegations in the complaint, the complainant and the first informant in the earlier case both together detected the alleged offence, caught the alleged offenders and handed them over to the police. Such being the case, I do not think it can be stated that the complainant has no locus standi or that receivers themselves should have filed the complaint. 5. Form 95 of the Criminal Rules of Practice is intended to be used by a Magistrate to give notice to the complainant about the filing of a refer report by police In the form it is stated that if the complainant disputes the correctness of the finding of the police he should appear before the court within days from this date. The space for filling up the number of days is left blank. Form No. 95 refers to S.173 or S.202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is not stated before me that in the refer notice issued in this case the blank space has been filled up. Form No. 95 is prescribed not to fetter or encumber in any way the rights and privileges of the complainant but only to bring to his notice the fact that the police have referred the case. In other words, the form is intended to safeguard the rights of the complainant who might not have received any intimation from the police as contemplated in S.173 (2) (ii) of the Code. When the police officer fails to issue an intimation as mentioned in S.173 (2) (ii) of the Code, the complainant may be left in the dark regarding the necessity to approach the court by way of a private complaint; such a contingency is sought to be prevented by providing Form No. 95 in the Criminal Rules of Practice. When the police officer fails to issue an intimation as mentioned in S.173 (2) (ii) of the Code, the complainant may be left in the dark regarding the necessity to approach the court by way of a private complaint; such a contingency is sought to be prevented by providing Form No. 95 in the Criminal Rules of Practice. It cannot be accepted that Form No. 95 will have the effect of limiting the power or the competency of the complainant to lodge a complaint after a particular number of days. This is all the more so since the Code itself does not prescribe any such limitation I may also notice that S.468 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not apply to the offences alleged in the case. I do not find any ground to exercise power under S.482 of the Code to quash the complaint. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged before me several other grounds which may affect the bona fides of the complaint and may go into the truth or otherwise of the allegations contained in the complaint. These are matters which have to be considered by the trial court and not by this court. The petition is accordingly dismissed.