G PANTIGONGPOU Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. the petitioner prays for quashing the F.I.R. No. 53 (11)/90 of Nungba P.S. which was registered under Section 188/34, I.P.C.

(2.) The facts in short are as follows: The SDO, Nungba, by this order dated 20.3.1986 appointed the complainant (Sohhem Gonjai) as Khullakpa of Taosang village in Tamenglong district. The complainant filed a complaint dated 25.10.1990 in the Court of C.J.M. Tamenglong, alleging that the accused, namely, (1) Shri. G. Pantigongpou, and (2) Shri G. Ramjanlung disobeyed the order by calling a meeting of the villagers on 8.9.1990. The accused No.1 also claimed to be Khullakpa. It was further alleged that the accused persons also threatened the complainant when he served notice to them asking to appear and to give show cause statement of the said notice which was published by them on 12.9.1990. The C.J.M. forwarded this complaint to Tamenglong P.S. which then registered Case No. F.I.R. 13 (12)/90 under section 188/34. Subsequently, the case was transferred from that P.S. to Nungba P.S. as the place of occurrence falls under the jurisdiction of this P.S. Nungba P.S. then registered it as F.I.R. No. 5 (11)190.

(3.) The contention of Mr. A. Nilamani Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner is that Section 188, I.P.C. is controlled by Section 190, I.P.C. which in turn is controlled by Section 195, Cr. P.C. and therefore even if the police submit a report on finding materials, the Magistrate to whom the complaint was filed would not be able to take cognizance and therefore this would mean only wasting of time of the I/O and harassment to the petitioners who are accused in the case. Against this Mr. Shyam Kishore, learned P.P. has contended that in the amended Cr. P.C. the section has become cognizable and therefore the police can investigate the case. He also stated that there is also an allegation of threat which would come under Section 506, I.P.C. He submitted that the proceedings before the police are not liable to be quashed. Mr. Nilamani has referred to page 1054 of Mitras Cr. P.C. 16th Edn. where-in it is said: (c) Absence of complaint-Private individuals are not to be allowed to evade the restrictive provisions of Section 195, Cr. P.C. and to bring prosecutions which should properly be brought by the courts themselves. In the absence of the complaint required by Section 195, the Magistrate acts without jurisdiction in summoning the accused and the subsequent proceedings are, therefore, void, Where the court has acted without jurisdiction with regard to a part of the trial (i.e. in respect of one of several offences), the whole proceedings are vitiated.