GOVINDA PILLAI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is against the order of the District Magistrate, Quilon 'accepting' the refer report filed in the case by the police. A private complaint alleging offences under S.420, 423, 342 and 506(ii) IPC. was presented before the Magistrate against 6 persons. The Magistrate forwarded the complaint to the police under S.156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The police, after investigation, filed a referred charge. Against this, notice was issued to the complainant by the Magistrate. On receipt of the notice he filed a protest petition requesting the court to ignore the final report of the police and take the case to the file. The learned Magistrate without even examining the complainant has passed the impugned order which concludes thus:

(2.) I am afraid the learned Magistrate has misguided himself; the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been misunderstood. The provision of S.200 of the Code is mandatory. The section provides that the 'Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall at once examine the complainant and the witnesses, if any present, upon oath.' In the present instance the complaint lodged before the Magistrate was forwarded by him under S.156(3) of the Code to the Police without examining the complainant on oath. That omission the learned Magistrate could have set right when the protest petition was received from the complainant.

(3.) I would, therefore, set aside the order and direct the restoration of the complaint of the petitioner to the file of the court to be dealt with according to law.