P BHTIRAJ Vs. K MUNIYANDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed under Section 482 Cr. P.C., to quash the proceedings viz., C.c. No. 5883/92 on the file of the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras. The petitioner who is the accused in the above mentioned case in facing the offences under Sections 187 and 166, I.P.C. in the private complaint filed by the respondent herein. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that for the offence under Section 187 I.P.C., the same can be taken cognizance only if the complaint was laid in writing by that Court against which the offence was committed and in this case, the complaint was not laid by any Court as laid down under Section 195 (I) (iii) of Cr. P.C. but only by the respondent/complainant and therefore, the proceedings is not sustainable. The complainant had alleged that the petitioner herein who is Assistant Commissioner of Police was directed by the 5th Metropolitan Magistrate to submit a report after enquiry on or before 7.6.199 1 but the same was not complied with by the petitioner herein and therefore, he is liable to be punished under Sections 167 & 187 I.P.C., Section 195 Cr. P.C. reads that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 of I.P.C., except on the complaint in writing by that Court or by some other Court to which that Court is subordinate, when offence was committed in, relation to the proceedings of the Court. As the respondent/complainant has alleged that the order of the learned V Metropolitan Magistrate was not complied with, certainly as contemplated under Section 195, Cr. P.C., the Presiding Officer of the V Metropolitan Magistrate Court alone is competent to lay a complaint. As the Court did not lay the complaint, certainly the complaint is not maintainable under Section 195 Cr. P.C.

(2.) NO doubt, in this case, the complaint for the other offence is maintainable under Section 166, I.P.C., by the party who suffered the inaction even without the sanctions. The question is whether the complaint under Section 166, I.P.C. is maintainable along with the allegations for the offence under Section 187, for which sanction is necessary. This aspect has been considered by this Court in In Re v. V.L. Narasmiha Murthy. Relying upon a Full Bench decision of this Court in Narayana Iyer v. Veerappa Pillai, (A.I.R. 1951 Madras 34) it was held in that case that when two offences are made out in the complaint and a complaint by the Court was necessary for one offence whereas no such complaint was necessary for the other offence, the party should not be allowed to avoid the provisions relating to a complaint by Court and the entire complaint should not be allowed to be enquired. In view of this decision, as the present complaint consists of two offences viz., 187 I.P.C. and 166 I.P.C. and the complainant has ignored the provision of Section 195, Cr. P.C. so far as the offence under Section 187 is concerned, the entire complaint can not be taken cognizance. Therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner stands quashed. In the result, C.C. NO. 5883/92 on the file of the X-Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras is quashed. The petition is allowed. Petition allowed.