A protest petition must meet the requirements of a complaint under Section 200 of the Cr. P.C. and contain the necessary facts that constitute an offence.

The Court

1. I have heard at length Sri S.A. Razvi, learned Counsel for the petitioners-accused and Sri Rajashekar Siri, learned Counsel for the respondent-complainant.

2. The respondent-complainant lodged a complaint with the police setting out as to what the petitioners-accused had allegedly done on 23-7-1996 and which acts amounted to offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code. The police investigated into the same and submitted 'B' report before the jurisdictional Magistrate. The respondent-complainant filed what he called objections to 'B' report filed by the police. I would extract the whole of that document for better appreciation of rival contentions of the parties:

"In the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yelburga

C.C. No. 310 of 1998

B.S. Madinoor v Veerappa and 13 Others

OBJECTIONS TO 'B' F.R. FILED BY THE POLICE

Herein the complainant above named begs to file his objection to 'B' F.R. filed by the I.O.

The complainant has filed the complaint on 23-8-1996 before the concerned police. The accused have committed an offence punishable under heinous offences. In spite of that Investigating Officer has not at all investigated the matter and not at all enquired and recorded the statement of witnesses which has cited by the complainant. Only the intention of the I.A. is to help the accused persons. This fact will also be brought to the notice of the higher officials.

In fact purposely deliberately to harass the complainant and to help the accused persons. I.A. has submitted 'B' F.R.

Now the complainant is ready to prove the charges against the accused.

Hence, it is prayed that the 'B' F.R. filed by the police may not be accepted and complainant may be permitted to prove the charges against the accused persons before this Hon'ble Court-Hence these objections.

Place: Yelburga

Date: 24-3-1998 Sd/-

Complainant".

The learned Magistrate then took cognizance obviously under Section 190(1)(a) of the Cr. P.C., recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and one witness, found sufficient ground to proceed against the petitioners-accused and directed issuing of process against them for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147 and 148 of the IPC and Sections 341, 323, 324, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of the IPC.

In this proceeding under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C., petitioners-accused seek quashing of the above said proceeding.

3. The only ground urged on behalf of the petitioners-accused by their learned Counsel, Sri S.A. Razvi is this: The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) of the Cr. P.C. upon receiving a complaint in the form of a protest petition under Section 200 of the Cr. P.C. The said protest petition, however, is not a complaint within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Cr. P.C. Therefore, there was no proper complaint before the learned Magistrate under Section 200 of the Cr. P.C., for taking cognizance, and taking of cognizance on the basis of such document therefore is bad in law.

4. Sri Rajashekar Siri, learned Counsel for the respondent-complainant would however submit that, the protest petition need not be a rewriting of all that has been stated in the earlier complaint, and that, it would suffice merely to denote the intention of the complainant that he would request the Court not to accept the 'B' report, but, on the other hand, to afford him an opportunity of proving his case and since that intention is made clear in ample measure from the protest petition as extracted above, the same needed to be construed as a complaint for the purpose of proceeding under Section 200 of the Cr. P.C., and that the said protest petition is very much a complaint within the meaning of Sections 2(d) of the Cr. P.C.

5. It is a settled position, and in this regard a reference could be made to a decision of this Court in Basappa and Others Vs. State of Karna