MADHAVAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition filed under S. 482 of the Code of criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings in C. C. No. 2344 of 1979 on the file of the Judicial II Class Magistrate, Cannanore, in which the petitioner figures as an accused.

(2.) THE Sub Inspector of Police, Cannanore Town Police station, on 3-10-1979 submitted a report to the court alleging that on 27-9-1979 at about mid-night the petitioner was found behaving in a disorderly and indecent manner using obscene and abusive language against passers-by and neighbours and thereby committed an offence punishable under s. 290 IPC. THE Court took cognizance of the offence and issued summons to the petitioner. THEreupon the petitioner rushed to this Court with the present petition.

(3.) ON the strength of the decision of the Calcutta High court reported in Shyama Prasanna v. State (1976 Cri. L. J. 1517), it is argued before me that the report submitted by the police officer in the event of being treated as a complaint, cannot be treated as a complaint instituted by a public servant and therefore the complainant should have been examined as provided in s. 200 of the Code before cognizance could be taken In the case referred to, a police officer in a non-coenizable offence conducted investigation and thereafter laid a complaint. It was held that he did so not in his capacity as a police officer and therefore the exemption provided in S. 200 proviso does not apply, and the non-examination of the complainant would affect the jurisdiction of the court to take cognizance. It may be noted that in that decision what the police officer purported to do was to file a complaint and not to submit a report.