## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT:**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA**
## **THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2013/14TH CHAITHRA 1935**
## **Crl.MC.No. 3209 of 2012 ()**
**--------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC.405/2011 of J.M.F.C.,PALA DATED 22-11-2011 CRIME NO. 28/2011 OF KURAVILANGADU POLICE STATION , KOTTAYAM**
**PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:**
**------------------------------------------**
**ANIL KUMAR, AGED 37 YEARS S/O.KUTTAPPAN, KAIPPAMALA VEEDU, CHATHANTHARA.P.O KOLLAMULA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.**
**BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN**
**RESPONDENT(S)/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------**
**1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.**
## **2. SINDHIA**
**D/O.AJITH KUMAR, KAVINTHAPARAMBIL HOUSE PADINJATTINSSERY, KAVIYOOR, THIRUVALLA PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689645.**
**R2 BY ADV. SRI.T.B.HOOD R2 BY ADV. SMT.M.ISHA BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C. RASHEED.**
**THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-04-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:**
## **CRL.M.C. 3209/2012**
## **APPENDIX**
## **PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS**
**ANNEXURE A1- CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.28/11 OF KURAVILANGAD POLICE STATION.**
**ANNEXURE A2- CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT ALONG WITH MEMO OF EVIDENCE, 161 STATEMENT OF SOME WITNESSES IN CRIME NO.28/2011 OF KURAVILANGAD POLICE STATION.**
**ANNEXURE A3- SUMMONS IN C.C.NO.405/2011 DATED 22.11.2011 ISSUED BY THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PALA.**
## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS**
## **[CR]**
## **B. KEMAL PASHA, J**
**-----------------------------------------------** Crl.M.C.No. 3209 of 2012 **-----------------------------------------------** Dated this the 4[th] day of April, 2013
## **O R D E R**
Whether the term 'complaint' used in S.198(1) Cr.P.C. is meant in the ordinary sense of the term in its literal meaning only, or whether it is meant for the one defined in Section 2(d) Cr.P.C., is precisely, the question to be answered here.
2. Petitioner, who is the accused in C.C.405 of 2011 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Pala has come up with a prayer to quash the proceedings against him on the ground that the court below had taken cognizance of the offence illegally. Alleging an offence under Section 495 IPC, the defacto
Crl.M.C.No. 3209 of 2012
-:2:-
complainant, wife of the petitioner, had approached the Kuravilangad Police. Even without taking recourse to Section 155(2) Cr.P.C., the Sub Inspector of police, Kuravilangad registered Crime No.28 of 2011 of Kuravilangad Police Station for the offence under Section 495 Cr.P.C. It seems that he had continued the investigation and laid the final report alleging an offence under Section 495 IPC, before the court below. The learned Magistrate has numbered the case as C.C. No. 405 of 2011 and has taken cognizance of the offence under Section 495 IPC.
3. As per S.198(1) Cr.P.C., no court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XX of the Indian Penal Code, except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence. The learned counsel for the 2[nd] respondent who is the defacto complainant has attempted to persuade this
Crl.M.C.No. 3209 of 2012
-:3:-
court with an argument that such a provision is incorporated under Section 198(1) Cr.P.C. only for enabling such a person to set the law in motion and not for any other thing. According to him, no special significance need be attributed to the term 'complaint' incorporated in Section 198(1) Cr.P.C. It is also argued that the term 'complaint' in Section 198(1) Cr.P.C. need only be understood in its literal meaning, and not as the one defined in S.2(d) Cr.P.C. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the said provision creates a total bar to the taking of cognizance by any court for any of the offences coming under Chapter XX of the IPC. It is also argued that the term 'complaint' in Section 198(1) Cr.P.C. is the very same 'complaint' as defined in S.2 (d) Cr.P.C.
S.2(d) Cr.P.C. defines 'complaint' as follows:-
Crl.M.C.No. 3209 of 2012
-:4:-
“complaint” means any allegation made or in to a orally writing Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under the Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report.”
4. The procedure in Cr.P.C. in respect of the trial of cases is contemplated in respect of two categories of cases only, either 'cases instituted on police report' or 'cases instituted otherwise than on police report'. The explanation to S.2(d) Cr.P.C. shows that the report of a police officer after investigation of a non-cognizable offence shall be deemed to be a 'complaint' within the meaning of S.2(d) of the Act. Being a non-cognizable offence, the final report in respect of the investigation of the offence under Section 495 IPC by the police officer can also be treated as a 'complaint'; but, such a complaint as per
Crl.M.C.No. 3209 of 2012
-:5:-
S.198(1) Cr.P.C. should be preferred by some person aggrieved by the offence. The police officer, who laid the final report cannot be treated as a person aggrieved by the offence under Section 495 IPC in this particular case.
5. According to the learned counsel for the 2[nd] respondent, the term 'complaint' in Section 198(1) Cr.P.C. can have only literal meaning of the term and not that of the 'complaint' under Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. The learned counsel places reliance on the decision rendered by the Allahabad High court in **Mahendra Kumar v. State of U.P.(1988 Crl.L.J.544)** , which is a case wherein the wife had lodged an FIR with the police alleging an offence under Section 495 IPC, and on the basis of it, after obtaining the permission of the Magistrate, the investigation was done by the police officer and a charge sheet was laid. In the said case, it
Crl.M.C.No. 3209 of 2012
-:6:-
was held that the word 'complaint' defined under Section 2(d) of the Code is not the one contemplated under Section 198(1) Cr.P.C. as the opening words in S.2(d) shows the words “unless the context otherwise requires”.
6. Even if the argument forwarded by the learned counsel for the 2[nd] respondent that the term 'complaint' in Section 198(1) Cr.P.C. is meant for setting the law in motion by the aggrieved person is appreciated, this Court does not find any material to see that the term 'complaint' noted in Section 198(1) Cr.P.C. is not the 'complaint' defined under Section 2 (d) Cr.P.C. On going through the provisions of law, there is nothing to hold that the term 'complaint' used in S.198(1) Cr.P.C. has been used in the ordinary sense of the term in its literal meaning only and not in legal parlance as defined in Section 2(d) Cr.P.C.
Crl.M.C.No. 3209 of 2012
-:7:-
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision in **Suraj v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2006 Crl.L.J.3323)** rendered by the Allahabad High Court wherein it was held:
“Thus, it clearly lays down that complaint should be made by the aggrieved person to the Magistrate, who shall follow the procedure laid down in Section 200 Cr. P.C. onwards and it does not include a police report, i.e. report under Section 173 (2) Cr. P.C. No doubt, in the Explanation to Section 2 (d) a report by police officer, which discloses a non-cognizable offence, shall be deemed to be a complaint but this explanation is not applicable in cases under Chapter XX of the Indian Penal Code. Thus, there was no complaint in the present case and charge sheet itself is not maintainable”.
Crl.M.C.No. 3209 of 2012
-:8:-
8. The court below has committed a grave error in taking cognizance on the basis of the police report. In a case for an offence punishable under Chapter XX of the IPC, there is a clear bar under Section 198(1) Cr.P.C. in taking cognizance of the matter except on a complaint by some person aggrieved by the offence. In **Ushaben v. Kishorbhai Chunilal Talpada and others, [(2012) 6 SCC 353 = 2012 (2) KLT 415 (SC)]** , the Apex court has approved the taking of cognizance of an offence under Section 494 IPC along with an offence under S.498-A IPC on a police report, as valid. On going though the decision noted supra it can be seen that the taking of cognizance in that case was held valid, only because of the fact that the offence under Section 498-A IPC does not come under Chapter XX of IPC. On going through para 18 of the decision in **Ushaben** (supra) it is evident that in a case
Crl.M.C.No. 3209 of 2012
-:9:-
wherein the offences coming under Chapter XX IPC alone are there, cognizance can be taken only upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence.
9. Matters being so, the taking of cognizance of the offence under Section 495 IPC in this case by the court below is bad as it was barred under Section 198 (1) Cr.P.C. Therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. 405 of 2011 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Pala are liable to be quashed.
10. This Court has taken serious note of the apprehension expressed by the learned counsel for the 2[nd] respondent that if the complaint of the 2[nd] petitioner who is really aggrieved in the matter is thrown out, the 2[nd] respondent would be nowhere. Of course, the 2[nd] respondent can prefer a complaint directly before the court below and proceed in the
Crl.M.C.No. 3209 of 2012
-:10:-
matter. It is made clear that this order will not stand in the way of the 2[nd] respondent to approach the court below with a valid complaint as contemplated under Section 198(1) Cr.P.C.
In the result, the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. 405 of 2011 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pala are quashed.
**Sd/- B. KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE**
ul/-
[True copy]
_P.S. to Judge._
Crl.M.C.No. 3209 of 2012
-:11:-
## **B. KEMAL PASHA, J ---------------------------**
## **Crl.M.C.No.3209 of 2012**
**O R D E R -------------------**
**4[th] day of April, 2013**
