ARUMUGAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition is to quash the proceedings in STC.No.811 of 2010 initiated for the alleged offence under Sec. 320 IPC.

(2.) Mr. Swami Subramanian, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the first respondent has no jurisdiction to investigate and file a final report in respect of the offence alleged in the final report as it is a non-cognizable offence; that the procedure prescribed for investigating non-cognizable offences has not been followed in the instant case; that the first respondent ought to have referred the informant to the learned Magistrate and thereafter, can investigate the said offence on the orders of the learned Magistrate; that however, in the instant case, the first respondent, on receipt of the complaint, sought permission from the learned Magistrate to investigate this offence and such a procedure is not contemplated under the Criminal Procedure Code. He relied upon the Judgements of this Court in A. Balakrishna vs. The Inspector of Police in Crl.O.P.No.8662 of 2020 dtd. 28/9/2020 and Karnataka High Court in (i) Sri Lokesh T R @ Loki vs. State of Karnataka and (ii) Charan Kumar vs. The State of Karnataka in support of his submission that Sec. 155 (1) (2) Cr.P.C., mandates that the officer-in-charge of the Police Station has to refer the informant and not the information alone to the learned Magistrate, and hence, he prayed for quashing of the proceedings against the petitioner.

(3.) Mr.K.S.Mohan Das, the learned Public Prosecutor (Puducherry) for the first respondent and Mr.S.Xavier Felix, the learned counsel for defacto complainant/second respondent, submitted that since the first respondent has obtained permission from the learned Magistrate, there is no illegality in the first respondent filing the final report for the non-cognizable offence. Hence, they prayed for the dismissal of the quash petition.