RAJ KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application ill directed against the 25-5-1982 by which cognizance has been taken for offence under Sections 143 and 188 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The admitted facts are that on 17-3-1982 the Sub-Inspector of Police was on duty with his other staffs in a High School where the examination was going on. A prohibitory order under Section 104 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was promulgated by the sub-Divisional Magistrate so that the examination could be conducted peacefully. On 27-3-1982 the Sub-Inspector of Police Sita Ram Singh, submitted a report to the Officer-in-charge of Samastipur Sadar Police. Station against the petitioner and others on which police case was registered Samastipur P.S. Case No. 142/82 under Section 143 and 188 I.P.C. After investigation the police submitted charge sheet on which the Chief Judicial Magistrate, by the same Impugned order took cognizance of the said offences.

(3.) The said order of cognizance has been challenged by the learned Counsel (OF the petitioner primarily on the ground that the mandatory provision of Section 195(1) (a) (1) of the Code of criminal Procedure has been violated inasmuch as that there was no complaint filed in this case at all. The complaint mentioned in the said section cannot be anything more then what is defined under Section 2(d) of the Cr. P.C. and in accordance with the said definition the F.I.R. will not be treated as a complaint. Within the meaning of the explanation to Section 2 (d) Cr. P.C. 8 report made by a Police Officer in a ease which discloses, after investigation, the commission of a noncognizable offence shall be deemed to be complaint, and the Police Officer by whom such information is recorded will be deemed to be complainant. But in the facts of this case cognizance bas been taken of the offence Which are cognizable and, therefore, the said report made by the Police Officer cannot be brought within the mischief of the explanation of Section 2(d), Cr. P.C. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner must succeed and on the facts of this case it has to be held that there was no complaint in this case and, therefore, the provision of Section 195 (1)(a) (1), Cr. P.C. was violated. The order of cognizance is, therefore, bad in Jaw and is quashed.