JESSY 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 S.323, 324, 341 and 354 read with S.34 IPC 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 S.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 S.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 S.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 the 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 R.26 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, Kerala, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") which is extracted hereunder:

(3.) The principle behind R.26 of the Rules is that the police officers who conduct an enquiry will be very slow in finding fault with their collegues or subordinates. There will also be a feeling in the mind of the complainant that he will not get justice and that the enquiry will not be fair and free. The apprehension in the mind of the complainant is reflected in R.26 of the Rules. Even if the enquiry is conducted by a superior police officer, the apprehension in the mind of the complainant cannot be dispelled with. In the decision reported in Mewa Lal v. Emperor, AIR 1920 All. 125, it is observed thus: