R SHANTILAL Vs. A PARASMAL JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are accused C. C. No. 502 of 1988 on the file of the S. D. J. M. , Ponnamallee. On a private complaint preferred by the respondent, the trial Court had taken the case on file against: the petitioners and one B. N. Chinnappan , arrayed as A2 in the complaint, an erstwhile Inspector of Police, Crimes, Pallavaram , for offences under Secs. 211, 412 and 500 read with Sec. 34, I. P. C. B. N. Chinnappan , the second accused in the case, is not a party before me.

(2.) THE facts which led to the filing of this private complaint can now be stated. On a complaint from the first petitioner R. Shantilal Jain, against the respondent and others alleging offences under Secs. 406 and 342 ,i. P. C. on 18. 1. 1983, the second accused B. N. Chinnappan registered it as Crime No. 45 of 1983 and took up investigation. THE allegations in the complaint preferred by Shantilal were that on 15. 12. 1982 he had entrusted to the respondent, jewels worth Rs. 7 lakhs and Cash Rs. 15 ,000 kept in a box. In between the date of complaint and 15. 12. 1982, it is the case of the first petitioner Shanthilal that he had been redeeming jewels by taking out of the box in the custody of the respondent however, on 18. 1. 1983, it is stated in the F. I. R. that the respondent claimed that the box with its contents was missing and when the first petitioner expressed his intention to prefer a police complaint, he was locked inside a room by the first respondent and three others, who threatened him as well.

(3.) LET me consider the rival contentions put forth by either counsel. In view of the authoritative enunciation of law by the Supreme court, there cannot be any dispute that this prosecution for an offence under sec. 211, I. P. C. , will not be maintainable. It is admitted that the respondent and others were produced before the trial Court, which had passed orders enlarging them on bail and further accepted the final report made by the investigating Agency. It is, therefore, apparent that the complaint against the petitioners in respect of an offence, said to have been committed in relation to a proceeding in Court. In taking cognizance of this offence, the trial magistrate has acted in contravention of the bar contained in Sec. 195 (1 ) (b), Crl. P. C. since there was no complaint in writing either of the Magistrate or his superior. All orders passed by the Magistrate acting judicially, such as orders of bail and those passed under Sec. l73 (3), Crl. P. C. discharging of the accused or taking cognizance of the offence complained of, are parts of an integral whole and they cannot be viewed in isolation and given a character different from the entire judicial process of which they are intended to form a part. Thus, the complaint for offence under Sec. 211, I. P. C. has to be necessarily quashed, as without jurisdiction.