The police cannot register a case under Section 195A of the IPC without following the procedure prescribed under Section 195(1)(b) of the CrPC, as the term "complaint" as defined under Section 2(d) of the CrPC does not include a police report.

Shib Sadhan Sadhu, J.

1. This petition has been filed under Section 482/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashment of the proceedings being G.R. Case No.35 of 2014 arising out of Balurghat P.S. Case No.18/2014 dated 12.01.2014 under Section 302/201/34/195A IPC and 25 (1)(a)/27 Arms Act, in which charge sheet bearing No.127 of 2014 dated 09.04.2014 has been filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balurghat, Dakshin Dinajpur against the petitioner.

2. As per prosecution, the de facto complainant Amal Halder lodged a written complaint before the I.C., Balurghat P.S. to the effect that on 11.01.2014 at about 11 P.M. his son Ram Prasad Halder receiving a call in his mobile phone left the house. Before leaving he told his father that he would return after sometime. But he did not return home throughout the whole night. Then in the early morning hours the de facto complainant called him in his mobile phone but it was switched off. So the de facto complainant came to P.S. to enquire about the whereabouts of his son. In the meantime he came to learn from the friends of his son that a man died sustaining sharp cut injuries and the dead body was lying in the Airport area. He rushed to that place and identified the dead body to be of his son. Thereafter, he lodged the complaint on the basis of which Balurghat P.S. Case No.18 of 2014 dated 12.01.2014 under Section 302/201/34 IPC was registered.

3. During investigation one witness Sagari Halder lodged a complaint before the I.C., Balurghat P.S. alleging that on 23.01.2014 at about 2.30 P.M. the police took the accused persons to that place where the dead body of the deceased was found and recovered some incriminating articles in pursuance of the statement made by the accused and seized those articles under a seizure list. That witness Sagari Halder also signed the seizure list. After police left the place some of the co-accused along with the present petitioner came to her house and threatened her and asked her not to give evidence in the case otherwise she will be killed. A G.D. Entry was made on the basis of such complaint. Thereafter, on completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted implicating the present petitioner also under Section 302/201/34 IPC adding Section 195A IPC and under Section 25(1)(a)/ 27 Arms Act..

4. The Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and there is no material collected against her so as to implicate her with the alleged offence save and except under Section 195 A IPC which has been levelled against her only on the basis of that complaint lodged by the witness Smt Sagari Halder during the course of investigation which according to him is absolutely illegal and is nothing but gross abuse of the power of the investigating agency.

5. Mr. Safiullah further contended that the offence under Section 195A of the IPC can only be registered after following the procedure as prescribed under Section 195(1)(b) (i) of the Cr.P.C., whereby it is apparent that the Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court only on the complaint in writing of that Court or by such officer of the Court as that Court may authorise in writing in this behalf, or of some other Court to which that Court is sub-ordinate. The complaint has been defined under Section 2(d) of the Cr.P.C. The complaint to the police or an information to the police by the private person would not fall within the definition of complaint, because the compliant would mean any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under the Code. As per Section 2(d), the charge-sheet filed by the police on information from a witness would not partake the character of complaint. Thus, according to him, cognizance of an offence cannot