VEERAPPA Vs. BHIMAREDDAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard at length Sri S. A. Razvi, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused and Sri Rajashekar Siri, learned counsel for the respondent-complainant.

(2.) THE respondent-complainant lodged a complaint with the police setting out as to what the petitioners-accused had allegedly done on 23-7-1996 and which acts amounted to offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code. The police investigated into the same and submitted 'b' report before the jurisdictional Magistrate. The respondent-complainant filed what he called objections to 'b' report filed by the police. I would extract the whole of that document for better appreciation of rival contentions of the parties :

(3.) THE only ground urged on behalf of the petitioners-accused by their learned counsel Sri S. A. Razvi is this: The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance under Section 190 (1) (a), Cr. P. C. upon receiving a complaint in the form of a protest petition under Section 200, Cr. P. C. The said protest petition, however, is not a complaint within the meaning of Section 2 (d), Cr. P. C. Therefore, there was no proper complaint before the learned Magistrate under Section 200, Cr. P. C. for taking cognizance, and taking of cognizance on the basis of such document, therefore is bad in law.