V. BHASKARA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner, who is accused No. 1 in C. C. 82/89 on the file of the Munsif Magistrate, Chilakalaripet.

( 2 ) THE facts in brief are : The 1st respondent filed a private complaint against the petitioner and another for different offences before the Munsif Magistrate, Chilakaluripet, on 2-5-1988. After receiving the complaint, the Magistrate referred the same to the Police for investigation under S. 156 (3) Cr. P. C. The police after investigation filed a final report under Sec. 173 stating the complaint to be false on 19-5-1988. Thereupon, the Magistrate issued proceedings closing the case by accepting the report of the police. Copy of the report of the police was served, according to the complainant (Ist respondent), on 15-11-88 and thereafter on 2-1-1989 the Ist respondent filed a protest petition. After hearing the complainant, the Magistrate made an order on 10-3-89 holding that the Court has ample jurisdiction and power to take cognizance of the private complaint in spite of the proceedings issued closing the case and accepting the report filed under Sec. 173 Cr. P. C. Thereafter, the Magistrate examined the complainant and the witnesses and took cognizance of the offence by order dated 30-3-1989.

( 3 ) THE main submission of Mr. Pattabhi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the Court on receipt of the report under S. 173 pursuant to the reference under S. 156 (3) to the effect that the complaint is false , has accepted it and issued proceedings closing the case. This means that the Court declined to take cognizance of the offence by exercising its power under S. 190 Cr. P. C. , which is judicial in nature. Therefore, when once it made an order-judicial in nature-it cannot review the same even by resorting to Ss. 200 to 204 Cr. P. C. , by virtue of the absolute prohibition envisaged by S. 362 Cr. P. C.

( 4 ) MR. T. Bali Reddy, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent, on the other hand submitted that the acceptance of the report filed by the police under S. 173 Cr. P. C. , is an administrative function and therefore, the bar imposed by S. 362 Cr. P. C. , is not attracted for purposes of taking cognizance of a private complaint after following the procedure under Ss. 200 to 204 Cr. P. C.

( 5 ) THE short question. therefore, that falls for consideration is, whether the criminal Court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of an offence after accepting the final report under S. 173 filed by the police consequent upon reference under S. 156 (3) Cr. P. C. , and issuing proceedings closing the case.

( 6 ) IT is S. 190 Cr. P. C. that deals with taking cognizance of an offence. Sub-sec. (1) (a) relates to taking cognizance upon a private complaint, (1) (b) upon a police report (charge-sheet) and (I) (c) upon information received from any person other than police or suo motu. On receipt of a private complaint, there are two courses open to the Magistrate to procure material for purposes of exercising his jurisdiction under S. 190 Cr. P. C. They are (i) resorting to Ss. 200 to 204 Cr. P. C. or (ii) directing investigation by the police under Sec. 156 (3) Cr. P. C. or by some other agency. On receipt of the report, in cases of reference under S. 156 (3), if it discloses an offence he may take cognizance of the offence under S. 190 (1) (b) and issue process. This he may do without being bound in any manner by the conclusion arrived at by the police in their report, if there are sufficient grounds in the light of the material. He may even decide that there are no sufficient grounds for proceeding further and drop action. It is equally open to the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence under S. 190 (1) (a) on the basis of the original complaint after following the procedure covered by Ss. 200 to 204 Cr. P. C. These are the different courses open, as laid down by the Supreme Court in H. S. Bains v. State (1980 Cri LJ 1308), to the Ma

Click Here to Read the rest of this document