PRASANNACHARY Vs. CHIKKAPINACHARI AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for special leave to appeal from an order of acquittal parsed by the Second Magistrate, Bangalore City. The Petitioner made a written complaint to the Police that, on the evening of 8-9-1956, the Accused trespassed into his house, assaulted him and caused him hurt. After investigation, the Bangalore North Police placed a charge-sheet against the Accused in the Court below. After inquiry, charges were framed against the Accused for offences under Sections 448 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and after trial the Accused were acquitted.

(2.) It is thus seen that the case was one instituted in the Court by the Police and not by the Petitioner. The question for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to apply for special leave under Section 417, Sub-section 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It reads :

(3.) It is urged by the learned Advocate for the Petitioner that the Petitioner instituted the case, though it was by preferring a complaint to the Police and not to the Court and that being the complainant he is entitled to apply for special leave. He says that he has been described in the Judgment as the "complainant". But the institution referred to in the sub-section obviously refers to institution in Court and means the initiation of criminal proceedings in Court. The petitioner's complaint to the Police, no doubt, was the starting point, but the initiation of proceedings in the Court was not by him but by the Police.