LOID JUDE MANAKKAT Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner was the petitioner in Crl. M.P. No. 602 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Cherthala Whether culpability could be attributed on the Investigating Officer and the officer who laid the final report, in a petition forwarded for investigation under S. 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the ground of non-filing of a complaint against the de facto complainant for giving false evidence and also for misusing their officially as public servants, in case, the report under S. 173(2) Cr.P.C. on such complaint is a closure report dubbing the case as a mistake of fact This question arises in the following factual matrix:-

(2.) Admittedly, Crime No. 595 of 2010 of Aroor Police Station was registered on receipt of the complaint filed by the second respondent before the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Cherthala forwarded for investigation, under S. 156(3) Cr.P.C. After completing the investigation in the above crime Annexure VII closure report was filed under S. 173 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate also took note of the fact that the second respondent, the de facto complainant, was not made a party in Crl. M.P. No. 602 of 2012 and observed that the attempt on the part of the revision petitioner herein was to get some orders behind the back of the de facto complainant. If the petition was bonafidely and genuinely made, he would have definitely impleaded the de facto complainant as a party to that application, it was observed. Such an observation was made, essentially, taking into account the fact that the allegation in the complaint is to the effect that the police officers had failed to register crime against the de facto complainant under Ss. 182 and 1931 P.C. It was found by the learned Magistrate that in order to attract S. 182 I.P.C. it is incumbent on the complainant to specifically plead and prove the injury or annoyance caused to him. On perusing the averments in the petition the learned Magistrate also found that a civil dispute was, then pending between the revision petitioner herein and the second respondent herein. In this case, the respondents have registered the aforesaid crime against the revision petitioner herein and other co-accused, admittedly, pursuant to the receipt of the complaint forwarded for investigation under S. 156(3) Cr.P.C. by the learned Magistrate. The prayer of the revision petitioner in Crl. M.P. No. 602 of 2012 moved before the learned Magistrate, itself would reveal that the final report was not then accepted by the learned Magistrate and the proceedings were also not then dropped. There can be little doubt that, in terms of the position of law, the learned Magistrate was to issue notice to the informant/de facto complainant and to afford him an opportunity of being heard at the time of consideration of the refer report for the purpose of deciding whether to accept the same. At any rate, no culpability can be attributed on the Investigating Officer or the superior officer who filed the final report on completion of such investigation for the reason that after finding the allegations in the private complaint as false they had not registered a crime against the de facto complainant. No specific provision has been brought to my notice making it mandatory for such officers to register a crime against the informant in such circumstances and making them liable for prosecution for such inaction. It is to be noted that the very prayer of the revision petitioner is to call respondents 1 and 2 therein to report the reasons as to why a complaint was not made against the de facto complainant for giving false evidence and misusing the official power conferred on them as public servants, before any order is passed on the final report. There is no rationale behind the prayer thus made. There can be no doubt with respect to the position of law that a final report is not binding on the court and the court has to make a judicial decision as to whether it should be accepted or not. That apart, I do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of the learned Magistrate that the action on the part of respondents 1 and 2 therein in registering a crime pursuant to an order passed by that court under S. 156(3) Cr.P.C. and commencing, continuing and completing the investigation thereon and then submitting a final report could not form the basis for a complaint against them solely for the reason of not filing a complaint against the de facto complainant, on referring the case as false. As rightly, held by the learned Magistrate, revision petitioner has no locus standi to dictate the police to register a crime or to file a complaint against the de facto complainant. No provision of law has been brought to my notice mandating that in such circumstances it is incumbent on the Investigating Officer or the officer laying the final report (closure report) to file a complaint against the de facto complainant for giving false evidence and misusing their official position as public servants.