V. BHASKARA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition filed to quash the proceedings in C. C. No. 6 of 1989 on the file of the 2nd Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Chirala.

( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are: The petitioner herein worked as a principal of the V. R. S. and Y. R. N. College, Chirala during 1966 to 31-3-89. The respondent-complainant is working as au. D. C. (Upper Division Clerk) in the same college. He filed a complaint under Sections 406 and 408 I. P. C. , against the petitioner in the Court below alleging that the respondent misappropriated funds of the college running to about Rs. 9,71,101/- during the period he worked in the College as the Principal.

( 3 ) THE main contention of Mr. S. Venkata Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint since he is not the aggrieved party and that if at all it is for the management of the College or the Government to launch any prosecution against the petitioner.

( 4 ) TO deal with this contention it is first necessary to make a reference to the relevant provisions in Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure providing for filing of complaints and the procedure to be adopted in relation thereof. Sec. 200 Cr. P. C. , envisages examination of the complainant and the witnesses present and recording their sworn statements by the magistrate before taking cognizance of an offence on a complaint. Under sec. 202 Cr. P. C. , after following the procedure envisaged by Sec. 200 and if he is competent to try the offence complained of the Magistrate may either inquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by the police under Sec. 156 Cr. P. C. , after postponing the issue of process. It is nowhere stated in Chapter XV that the complaint has to be filed by the aggrieved person alone. Further Sec. 190 Cr. P. C. , empowers the Court having jurisdiction to try the offence, to take cognizance of the offence (i) on receiving a complaint from a private citizen, (ii) on receiving a report from police or (iii) on receiving information from any person other than police or (iv) upon his own knowledge. Thus, the scheme of the Code permits taking cognizance of an offence, whether or not the complaint is filed by the aggrieved party, after following the procedure according to law. The exception to this principle is provided in Sees. 195 to 199 Cr. P. C. The supreme Court in G. Narasimham vs. T. V. Chokkappal while holding that the general rule is that a complaint can be filed by anybody whether he is an aggrieved person or not, observed that Sec. 198 Cr. P. C. , is an exception by way of modification to that rule permitting only an aggrieved person to move a magistrate in cases of defamation. The Supreme Court further held that the section (Sec. 198) is mandatory so that if a magistrate were to take cognizance of the offence of defamation on a complaint filed by one who is not an aggrieved person, the trial and conviction would be vitiated. In Vishwa Mitter vs. O. P. Peddar2 the view of the Supreme Court is to the same effect, viz. , the Magistrate would be as a general rule competent to take cognizance of the offence irrespective of the qualifications or eligibility of the complainant to file the complaint. However, where a provision to the contrary, presently Sections 195 to 199 Cr. P. C. , is made in any statute, which may indicate the qualification or eligibility ot a complainant to file the complaint, the Magistrate before taking cognizance is entitled and has power to inquire whether the complainant satisfies the eligibility criteria. In A. R. Antulay vs. R. S. Nayak the Supreme Court reiterated its view :"it is well recognised principle of criminal jurisprudence that anyone can set or put the criminal law into motion except where the statute enacting or creating an offence indicates to the contrary. . . . . . Locus standi of the complainant is a concept foreign to criminal jurisprudence save and except that where the st

Click Here to Read the rest of this document