JONY JACOB Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complaint filed by the petitioner, Crl. M.P. No. 8972 of 1997 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Thiruvalla alleging offence punishable under sections 323, 324, 341 and 354 read with section 34 I.P.C. against the Sub Inspector of Police and two Women Head Constables, Thiruvalla Police Station was forwarded to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruvalla for enquiry under section 202 Cr.P.C. The Deputy Superintendent of Police filed a report before the court stating that the allegations in the complaint are not correct and that nothing as alleged in the complaint ever happened. This report was accepted by the court which acted upon the same and dismissed the complaint under section 203 Cr.P.C. recording the finding that there is no sufficient ground to proceed with the complaint. The complainant who is aggrieved by the said order challenges the same in revision.

(2.) WHEN a complaint is filed before the Magistrate who is competent to take cognizance of the same, he can do so on examination of the complainant and the witnesses, if any, as provided under section 200 Cr.P.C. He can also postpone the issue of process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. In the instant case, the Magistrate thought it necessary to cause an investigation to be conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. This procedure is illegal in view of rule 26 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, Kerala, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") which is extracted hereunder :

(3.) SIMILAR is the view taken in the decision reported in Ramakrishna v. M.K. Patil and others, 1978 Crl. L.J. NOC 45, wherein it is held thus :