DIVYA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On a complaint made by the petitioner's motherin - law a crime was registered against the petitioner under S.324 of the Indian Penal Code by the Taliparamba Police, as Crime No. 355/2015. On investigation, the police found that it is a false complaint. Accordingly, the crime was referred, and the Sub Inspector of Police sought permission of the learned Magistrate to investigate into the offence under S.182 of the Indian Penal Code. Without noticing the bar of cognizance under the law, the learned Magistrate mechanically granted permission to investigate. After investigation, the police submitted final report against the mother - in - law under S.182 of the Indian Penal Code. By order dated 6.6.2015, the learned Magistrate declined to take cognizance on the said final report on the ground that there is bar of cognizance under S.195(1)(a)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The daughter - in - law now challenges the said order passed by the learned Magistrate.

(2.) On hearing the learned counsel, and on a perusal of the impugned order, I find that the decision of the learned Magistrate is quite right under the law. It appears that the petitioner has some confusion regarding "cognizance" and "congnizable". Just because the learned Magistrate granted permission to investigate into the non - cognizable offence, cognizance cannot be taken on the basis of final report, if there is clear bar of cognizance under the law. So far as the offence under S.182 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, cognizance is possible only on a complaint made by the concerned public servant. In this case, instead of making a complaint, alleging the offence under S.182 of the Indian Penal Code, the Sub Inspector submitted a final report under S.173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In view of the clear bar of cognizance under the law, the learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance on the final report. It is made clear that remedy is still open to the Sub Inspector to file a proper complaint against the accused under S.182 of the IPC subject to limitation. I find that decision was rightly taken by the learned Magistrate not to take cognizance on the final report brought by the Sub Inspector. In this matter the petitioner herein cannot have any grievance. If at all the Sub Inspector is aggrieved, and if he wants to prosecute the accused under S.182 of IPC, he will have to file a proper complaint, without which cognizance is not possible. I find that this Crl.M.C is liable to be dismissed in limine.