PARAMESWARAN NAIR Vs. SURENDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether a Magistrate is competent to take cognizance of a protest complaint filed by a complainant on receipt of the notice on a refer report submitted by the police officer after investigation under Section 173(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, ignoring the refer report and without considering the question whether the refer report is to be accepted or not This is the question to be settled in the revision. Incidentally, what is the proper procedure to be adopted by a Magistrate on receipt of a refer report is also to be settled.

(2.) Facts on a narrow compass is as follows: First respondent filed a complaint before Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Haripad against three accused alleging that they committed offences under Sections 409, 420, 468, 471, 474 and 477-A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate on receipt of the complaint sent it for investigation under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code). Crime 326/2006 was registered. Additional Sub-Inspector of Police, Haripad investigated the case. He submitted a refer report on 20-9-2006 to the effect that the case is false. Magistrate issued notice to first respondent, the complainant. As notice was not served, it was adjourned for service of notice and finally it stood posted to 21-4-2007. On 21-4-2007 first respondent filed C.M.P. 899/2007 a protest complaint. Learned Magistrate thereafter passed orders only in C.M.P. 899/2007 and did not pass any further order on the refer report, though notice was originally ordered thereon. It is evidently in view of filing of the protest complaint. Learned Magistrate recorded the sworn statement of first respondent and two witnesses in C.M.P. 899/2007 and posted it for hearing to 20-8-2007. On 20-8-2007 the following order was passed.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for revision petitioner and learned Counsel appearing for first respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard.