E K PALANISAMY Vs. DEPUTY SUPRINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein, who is Al amongst three accused in C.C.No. 591 of 2007 taken on file by Judicial Magistrate No. II, Erode, with reference to the charge sheet filed by the respondent police in Cr. No. 13 76 of 1998 for offences under Sections 188, 420 IPC. & 466, 467,468 and 420 read with 109 IPC, seeks to quash the said proceedings.

(2.) The de facto complainant is the owner of the land measuring 35000 sq. ft. in Ward-A, Block-15, T.S. No. 1, 2 and 3 in Erode Town and the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner herein/A 1, with a view to clandestinely usurp the said property, created forged documents and fake revenue records and, in collusion and conspiracy with A2/Tahsildar and A3/Sub Inspector of Survey, procured patta in his favour and sold the land to third parties. After conclusion of the investigation, final report has been filed, culminating in the aforesaid proceedings before the trial Court.

(3.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioner points out that the 2nd and 3rd accused are admittedly public servants and in such circumstance, when there is an allegation against the petitioner for having committed an offence under Section 182 IPC i.e., he furnished false information with the intent to cause the public servants to use their lawful power to the injury of another person, the procedure contemplated under Section 195 Cr.P.C. should have been strictly adhered to, for, by operation of the said provision in the procedural law, no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 of IPC or of any abetment of, attempt to commit such offence or of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. According to the learned senior counsel, in the light of the allegation that the petitioner influenced A-2 and A-3/public servants to grant patta in his favour and in turn, both of them used their lawful power to issue the patta and of the fact that the complaint not having been lodged by the competent authority but by a third party/de facto complainant, who claims himself as the owner of the property, the charge sheet filed based on the investigation done with reference to the offence under Section 182 IPC cannot be looked into by the Court for taking cognizance. Referring to the definitions given for police report and complaint in Section-2(r) and 2(d) respectively of the Code, he argues that, in order to proceed with the investigation of a case pertaining to an offence under Section 1821.P.C., the complaint should have been directly given before the learned Magistrate by the public servant concerned himself or by a superior officer and since, in the present case, there is deviation in complying with the specific procedure prescribed, Section 182 IPC as found in the charge sheet must be deleted. In support of his submission, learned senior counsel relied on the case law in Daulat Ram v. State of Punjab AIR 1962 SC 1206 : (1963) 1 MLJ (Crl) 164, wherein the Apex Court ruled as follows at p. 166 of MLJ (Crl):