ANIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER the term 'complaint' used in S.198(1) Cr.P.C. is meant in the ordinary sense of the term in its literal meaning only, or whether it is meant for the one defined in Section 2(d) Cr.P.C., is precisely, the question to be answered here.

(2.) PETITIONER , who is the accused in C.C.405 of 2011 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Pala has come up with a prayer to quash the proceedings against him on the ground that the court below had taken cognizance of the offence illegally. Alleging an offence under Section 495 IPC, the defacto complainant, wife of the petitioner, had approached the Kuravilangad Police. Even without taking recourse to Section 155(2) Cr.P.C., the Sub Inspector of police, Kuravilangad registered Crime No.28 of 2011 of Kuravilangad Police Station for the offence under Section 495 Cr.P.C. It seems that he had continued the investigation and laid the final report alleging an offence under Section 495 IPC, before the court below. The learned Magistrate has numbered the case as C.C. No. 405 of 2011 and has taken cognizance of the offence under Section 495 IPC.

(3.) THE procedure in Cr.P.C. in respect of the trial of cases is contemplated in respect of two categories of cases only, either 'cases instituted on police report' or 'cases instituted otherwise than on police report'. The explanation to S.2(d) Cr.P.C. shows that the report of a police officer after investigation of a non-cognizable offence shall be deemed to be a 'complaint' within the meaning of S.2(d) of the Act. Being a non-cognizable offence, the final report in respect of the investigation of the offence under Section 495 IPC by the police officer can also be treated as a 'complaint'; but, such a complaint as per S.198(1) Cr.P.C. should be preferred by some person aggrieved by the offence. The police officer, who laid the final report cannot be treated as a person aggrieved by the offence under Section 495 IPC in this particular case.