Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 510 (AP)

V. D. Krishna Murthy v. State of A. P.

2006-04-12

G.YETHIRAJULU

body2006
ORDER This Criminal Revision Case is filed by A-1 against the order of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Puttur, challenging the forwarding of complaint under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.') for investigation, through the order dated 06-02-2006. 2. A private complaint has been filed against the petitioner and another person on 06-02-2006 for the offences under Sections, 269, 270, 354, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'I.P.C.') and under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for (short 'the Act'). It is further mentioned that initially a complaint has been lodged with the Station House Officer, Puttur Police Station on 07-12-2005 and though two months have elapsed, the police did not take any action, therefore, the complainant preferred this complaint requesting the Court to take the complaint on file. The learned Magistrate passed the following order: "The accused 1 and 2 alleged to have committed under Sections 278, 354, 323 and 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3 (1) (x) of the Act and the offence was committed within the limits of Puttur Police Station and within the jurisdiction of this Court. The complainant presented the report before the Station House Officer, Puttur Police Station and the police neither registered the case not investigated into. Hence, the present complaint before this Court with a copy of the Report filed before the police. Forwarded to the Officer In-charge of Puttur police Station, under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for investigation and report by 06-03-2006." 3. On receipt of the complaint, Puttur police Station registered a Crime No.19 of 2006 and took up investigation. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate forwarding the complaint to the Puttur Police Station for investigation and registering of the crime by Puttur Police Station, approached this Court praying to set aside them. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Section 200 Cr.P.C. It is mandatory under Section 200 Cr.P.C. to examine the complainant and his witnesses on oath and hen the trial Court shall proceed according to the Chapter 15. Forwarding the complaint is against the procedure prescribed under Cr.P.C., therefore, the registering of the crime by Puttur Police Station is illegal and is liable to be set aside. 5. Forwarding the complaint is against the procedure prescribed under Cr.P.C., therefore, the registering of the crime by Puttur Police Station is illegal and is liable to be set aside. 5. The offences alleged in the complaint are cognizable, therefore, whenever a complaint is filed, the Magistrate is empowered to forward the complaint under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. to the police for investigation. Under Section 190 Cr.P.C. any Magistrate may take cognizance of any offence (a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence; (b) upon a police report of such facts; and (c) upon information received from any person other than police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed. Therefore, the Magistrate has every power to forward the complaint to the police for investigation. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner represented that when once a complaint is filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C. the procedure under Section 202 Cr.P.C. has to be followed. In such a case unless the Magistrate records the sworn statement of the complainant, he is not entitled to forward the same to the police for investigation under Section 202 (1) (a) Cr.P.C. and as the learned Magistrate failed to record the sworn statement of the complainant in the present case, the forwarding of the complaint to the police for investigation is illegal. Therefore, the order of the learned Magistrate and the crime are liable to be set aside. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the following cases: 1. K. Laxma Reddy v. State of A.P., 2003 (1) ALT (Crl.) 309 (A.P.). 2. K. Chandran v. Chellappa Mudaliar, 1995 (2) ALT (Crl.) 582 (Mad.). 3. K. Mahadevan v. Y. Venkatesh and another, 1992 (3) ALT 634 . 4. Emperor v. Bikha moti, AIR 1938 Sind. 113 (F.B.). 7. In the above decisions, Section 202 Cr.P.C. has been considered and held that taking cognizance by Magistrate without recording sworn statement of the complainant and the witness present is illegal except Clause (a) and (b) of Section 200 Cr.P.C. 8. In the present case, the Magistrate did not take cognizance of the offences, therefore, the question of recording the sworn statement before taking cognizance of the offence does not arise. 9. In the present case, the Magistrate did not take cognizance of the offences, therefore, the question of recording the sworn statement before taking cognizance of the offence does not arise. 9. In D. Lakshminarayana Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy, AIR 1976 SC 1672 the Supreme Court held that in case a Magistrate can order investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. into offences exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the provision under Section 202 is not attracted. He is not proceeding under Section 200 Cr.P.C. as he does not take cognizance of the offences while acting under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. 10. In the present case, the offences are triable by the Court of Sessions. The learned Magistrate simply forwarded the complaint under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for registering the crime and investigation, in view of the relevant provisions of Cr.P.C. is empowered to forward the complaint for investigation and there is no illegality committed by the Magistrate. The non-recording of the sworn statement of complainant or his witnesses at the time of presentation before forwarding the complaint to the police is not in violation of any provisions of Cr.P.C. and there is no illegality in the order passed by the learned Magistrate. Therefore, the question of setting aside the crime recorded by Puttur Police Station does not rise. 11. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as devoid of merits.