AYYAPPAN Vs. KRISHNAPILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order in Crl. M.P. No. 548 of 1993 in C.C. No. 46/91 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil Kanyakumari District on the application filed by the respondent/accused discharge him is challenged in this revision before this Court by the petitioner/complainant.

(2.) The petitioner filed a private complaint against the respondent-Inspector of Police for the offences under Sections 166, 167, 199, 200, 213, 344, 345, 347, 379, 380, 387, 323, 448, 506(2), I.P.C. read with 34, I.P.C. This complaint was taken on file by the lower Court on 26-4-1991. The contents of the complaint is that on 9-7-1990, the accused/respondent forcibly took the petitioner from his jewellery shop and detained him in the police station for several days and after threatening the complainant and his relatives, he forcibly relieved all the jewels from him and thereby he has committed the above referred offences.2A. Prior to the filing of this private complaint on behalf of the petitioner Writ Petitions were filed before this Court in W.P. No. 11212 and 12229 of 1990. In that Writ Petitions, containing false allegations the respondent/accused filed a counter-affidavit. Therefore, the petitioner during the pendency of the Writ Petitions filed the above referred private complaint, for the offences forhaving taken forcibly and relieved of jewels from him after illegal detention for a number of days in the police station and for the false affidavit filed before this Court. The above Writ Petitions came up for final disposal before this Court. When this Court was brought to the notice of the pendency of the private complaint against the respondent/accused, the Division Bench observed in the order in the Writ Petitions that the question of illegal detention of the detenu by the respondent, Inspector of Police and the various other offences mentioned in the complaint may have to be probed into during trial and on that basis, the Division Bench dismissed the Writ Petitions and directed the trial Magistrate to dispose of the above referred private complaint as early as possible. This order was passed on 29-4-1991.

(3.) Despite this order, the accused/respondent instead of facing the trial before the Court, even before the commencement of trial filed a petition under Section 245(2), Cr. P.C. to discharge him mainly on the ground that for the offences under Sections 199 and 200, I.P.C. only the concerned Court as per Section 195, Cr. P.C. could file the complaint and then alone the Criminal Court has got powers to take cognisance of the said offences and therefore, he has to be discharged in respect of the above offences including all the other offences. It was also further contended that Section 195, Cr. P.C. was not complied with.