KUM. MAYAVATHI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners - accused Nos.1 and 2 have called in question the validity of the proceedings in C.C.No.285/2014, which has subsequently been re-numbered as C.C.No.30754/2021 and has been assigned to the XLII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.

(2.) It is the contention of Smt. Pramila Nesargi, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that FIR has been registered pursuant to the information made out at Annexure-C dtd. 27/4/2013 as regards the offences under Ss. 353, 188 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code (For short, 'IPC'). It is submitted that on the face of it insofar as the offence of Sec. 188 of IPC is concerned in light of Sec. 195 (1)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C, the complaint must be in writing and that the reference to complaint under Sec. 195 of Cr.P.C would have to be construed as a complaint under Sec. 200 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, it is submitted that in the present case, Annexure-C would not fulfill the legal requirement as required under Sec. 195 of Cr.P.C. Insofar as offence of Sec. 353 of Cr.P.C is concerned, it is pointed out that bare reading of the information at Annexure-C would only make out that the accused are supposed to have snatched the currency bundle from the Officer and that there is no use of criminal force.

(3.) However, it is pointed out that insofar as the Election Commission of India is concerned, compliant was made by the accused to the Election Commission of India and they have made out a reply dtd. 30/4/2013 at Annexure-H. Attention is drawn to paragraph No.5 of the Communication made out to the second petitioner herein, which reads as follows: