Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 239 (AP)

Rebaka Vara Prasad v. State of A. P.

2012-03-05

K.C.BHANU

body2012
Judgment : These criminal petitions are filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.160 of 2011 of Samalkot Police Station, East Godavari District, which was registered for the offences under Sections 195A and 506 r/w 34 IPC. It is alleged that on 19.10.2009, the defacto complainant-2nd respondent joined Zilla Parishad High School, G. Medapadu and since then A1, who is the Head Master of the School, and A2, who is the Assistant-cum-In-charge Head Master, started harassing her. She lodged a complaint with the police which was registered as Crime No.243 of 2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 509 and 506 r/w 109 IPC. Though A1 was suspended on 01.12.2010, he used to come to the school several times and threaten that he would join in the school within 15 days and that he would not leave her. After revocation of suspension, A1 joined the school on 30.03.2011 and since then he started harassing her saying that he would cut her salary and that her services would not be regularized. She addressed a letter to the concerned officials. A1 also threatened that if she does not withdraw the cases that are filed against him, he knew what to do and that nobody can do anything, and that he is not afraid of police case and that he would kill her if she gives evidence before the Court. Basing on the same, the police registered a case in Crime No.160 of 2011 for offences punishable under Sections 195 A and 506 r/w 34 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the police have no power to register a case in view of the fact that under Section 195 IPC, a complaint has to be lodged by an aggrieved person before the concerned Court, and that even if the entire allegations are taken to be true and correct, they do not make out a prima facie offence alleged and hence continuation of proceedings is nothing but abuse of process of Court. Under Section 195A IPC, “whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause that person to give false evidence shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both”. The above provision makes it clear that when there is a threat or inducement to any person with an intention to cause that person to give false evidence, it is an offence. Similarly, Section 506 IPC prescribes punishment for criminal intimidation. Criminal intimidation is defined under Section 503 IPC which reads, “whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of anyone in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation. From the above provision, it is clear that threatening with an intention to cause alarm to that person, is a criminal intimidation. It is not in dispute that Section 195A IPC is a cognizable offence as per the schedule of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. When a cognizable offence is reported to the police, the police have got power to investigate into the case as contemplated under Section 156 Cr.P.C. With regard to the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the word ‘complaint’ used under Section 195A of Cr.P.C would indicate that the ‘aggrieved party has to file the complaint before the Magistrate’, Section 195A of Cr.P.C reads that “a witness or any other person may file a complaint in relation to an offence”, under Section 195A of the Indian Penal Code. No doubt, the word ‘complaint’ defined under Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C., reads, any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report”. Explanation reads that a report made by a police officer in a case which discloses, after investigation, the commission of a non-cognizable offence shall be deemed to be a complaint; and the police officer by whom such report is made shall be deemed to be the complainant. Explanation reads that a report made by a police officer in a case which discloses, after investigation, the commission of a non-cognizable offence shall be deemed to be a complaint; and the police officer by whom such report is made shall be deemed to be the complainant. But the word ‘complaint’ as mentioned under Section 195A of Cr.P.C cannot be construed in a narrow sense so as to not to include a police report, because if the contention of the counsel for the petitioners is accepted as true and correct, the schedule of Cr.P.C. would not have been stated that it is a cognizable offence, and the offence should have been mentioned as a non-cognizable offence, whereunder the police cannot investigate the offence. The very fact that under Section 195A IPC, the offence is shown as cognizable offence and that provision has to be read with Section 156 Cr.P.C. Section 156 of Cr.P.C. confers on the police unrestricted power to investigate a cognizable offence without the order of Magistrate or without a formal first information report. This they may do either on information under Section 154 of Cr.P.C., or of their own motion on their own knowledge or to other reliable information. Hence the police has got power to investigate the case. Therefore, the expression ‘complaint’, as referred to in Section 195A Cr.P.C, cannot have a restricted meaning as defined under Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the police have no power to investigate the case cannot be countenanced. There cannot be any dispute that procedural provisions have to be considered harmoniously, and they cannot be read so as to nullify another statutory provision. If a complaint has to be lodged before a Magistrate, then the police would not have jurisdiction to investigate the case, but when the statute prescribes a penal provision as cognizable offence, it confers powers on the police to investigate a case, that power cannot be curtailed by narrow interpretation of the expression ‘complaint’ with reference to Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is totally devoid of merit and is untenable, and hence the criminal petitions Accordingly, the criminal petitions are dismissed. The stay granted earlier stands vacated.