AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Raja Elango, J.—Petitioners approach this Court aggrieved over the registration of FIR in Cr. Nos. 95 of 2007 and 96 of 2007 on the basis of reference made by the learned Magistrate u/s 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure based on a complaint given by one R.G. Subramanyam, S/o. R. Govinda Swamy, Sub-Inspector of Police (in Cr. No. 95 of 2007) and one Sri Kandula Venkata Reddy, S/o. K. Pulla Reddy, Inspector of Police(in Cr. No . 96 of 2007) whereby the Petitioners are arrayed as accused for an offence under Sections 499 and 500 IPC.
The brief facts of the case are as follows:
One news item was published in EENADU Telugu Daily newspaper under the caption of "Matka Marriki Oodalivigo" whereby a defamatory publication was made in the said paper against the police officers. Hence, the Inspector and Sub-Inspector of the concerned area preferred complaints before the Magistrate concerned by invoking the provisions u/s 200 Code of Criminal Procedure On filing of such complaints, the learned Magistrate referred the said complaints to police u/s 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure for registration of FIR and investigation.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioners raised the following points for consideration:
The offence being non-cognizable, the learned Magistrate ought not to have referred the matter u/s 156(3),
the complaint should be only by an aggrieved person and
the chief editor cannot be arrayed as an accused since no knowledge is attributed in the complaint against him.
The first contention raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners is that in a non-cognizable offence the learned Magistrate ordered for investigation, which is bad in law. Further, for the said offence there is a bar u/s 199 Code of Criminal Procedure to take cognizance unless the complaint is filed by an aggrieved person.
When a complaint is filed u/s 200 Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Magistrate left open with the following options:
a. he can refer the matter for investigation u/s 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure prior to taking cognizance,
b. he can take cognizance and proceed with the matter,
c. he can order for an enquiry u/s 202 Code of Criminal Procedure, and
d. he can proceed with the complaint and he can also rely on the report filed u/s 202 Code of Criminal Procedure.
Even though u/s 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate is not taking cognizance of the offence, as observed by this Court in an earlier occasion the learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint u/s 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure since he is not taking cognizance of the offence. It does not mean that the Magistrate has no power to apply his mind whether the matter is to be investigated or not. In the present case the learned Magistrate without applying his mind in a non-cognizable offence ordered for enquiry. But, at the same time this Court is also aware of the fact in a non-cognizable offence, the police also have no power to investigate unless and otherwise with the order of the Magistrate u/s 155(2) and (3) Code of Criminal Procedure Even though the reference is made by the Magistrate u/s 156(3) without application of mind in a non-cognizable offence, the police is at liberty to proceed in view of the provisions u/s 155(2) and (3) Code of Criminal Procedure Even assuming for a moment that the orders passed by the Magistrate and the investigation are not bad in law, the point remains to be considered is whether the charge sheet filed by the Investigating Officer on the basis of the reference made by the learned Magistrate where the Court has power to take cognizance of the offence is valid or not.
In the present case, admittedly the offence alleged is under Sections 499 and 500 Code of Criminal Procedure As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners there is a bar u/s 199(1) Code of Criminal Procedure, as per which, the complaint should be filed only by the aggrieved person. A charge sheet filed by the police officer cannot be called as a complaint filed u/s 200 Code of Criminal Procedure Hence, this Court is of the view that by the reference u/s 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure and the investigation proceeded by the police officer u/s 155(2) and (3) would serve no purpose even if the charge sheet is filed before the court concerned in view of the bar u/s 199(1) Code of Criminal Procedure.
Learned Counsel for the Respondents fairly admits that these complaints should not even referred u/s 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure in view of the provisions under Code of Criminal Procedure as mentioned above. But at the same time, he contended that the Respondents herein filed the complaints only for the purpose of taking cognizance and to proceed further before the Magistrate, whereas an order passed by the learned Magistrate by invoking the provisions u/s 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure, the complaints should not be allowed to suffer.
This Court is also of the view that the complainants have approached the Court with a proper prayer, whereas, the learned Magistrate has referred the same u/s 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure This Court without going into the other two contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, in view of the above discussions direct the respective complainants herein to file fresh complaint Syand as far as the question of limitation is concerned, it should be condoned in view of the fact that already the Respondents have set the law in motion and also they filed the complaints within the period of limitation. On such filing of the complaints, the learned Magistrate is at liberty to take cognizance if the said complaints disclose any offence, and the complaints are in accordance with the provisions of law.
With the above observation, the criminal petitions are disposed of. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed along with the criminal petition shall stand closed.