VARADARAJU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition against an order of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate No. III, Madurai, dismissing a complaint.

(2.) The case of the Petitioner is as follows: The Petitioner who is a Headmaster, complained before the police about several offences committed by four teachers working under him. The police has filed a final report to the effect that the offences appeared to have been committed are under Ss.341 and 324 I.P.C. The complainant, finding that the facts amounting to offences under Ss.341, 324, 354 and 379, I.P.C, were not taken into account by the Police, filed a private complaint before the Magistrate. The latter, by order dated 25th January 1984(sic), dismissed the complaint under Section 190 Cr.P.C., for the reason that the complainant had given a complaint to the police who had filed a final report upon investigation and that the same had been taken cognizance of in C C.389 of 1981 in the said court, and further observed that if the complainant was aggrieved by the omissions of charges for a lesser offence, he could give evidence during trial and ask for alteration of the charge under S. 26(sic), Code of Criminal Procedure It is against that order present revision petition has been preferred.

(3.) First it is to be observed that the Magistrate has no power to dismiss a complaint under Section 190 , Code of Criminal Procedure. He can dismiss it only under Section 203 after considering the statements, if any, of the complainant and of the witnesses, and the result of the inquiry or investigation, if any, under Section 202. Under Section 190, the Magistrate can only abstain from taking cognizance if the allegations are flimsy or fanciful.