SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1998 Supreme(Ker) 281

Judges : S.MARIMUTHU
T.C.Prasad And Others - Appellant
Versus
Circle Inspector Of Police, Mavelikkara And Another - Respondent
Case No : Crl.M.C. No. 465 of 1997
Decided On : 07/13/1998
Advocates Appeared :
For the Petitioner: K. Ramakumar and Babu S. Nair, Advocates. For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor, S.U. Nazar, (for No. 1) and P.K. Ashokan, (for No. 2).

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Magistrate is empowered to forward a complaint under Section 498A, I.P.C. to the police for investigation and report, as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

Headnote:

Section 498A - Jurisdiction of Magistrate to Forward Complaint to Police - Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. - Section 198A of Cr.P.C. - Supreme Court's Interpretation of Section 498A and Section 198A - Procedural Law in the Code of Criminal Procedure

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners appealed to the Court to review the order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate and the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent, arguing that the Magistrate was not empowered to forward a non-cognizable complaint under Section 498A, I.P.C. to the police under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C.

Finding of the Court:

The Court analyzed the legal provisions of Section 498A, I.P.C., Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., and Section 198A of Cr.P.C. The Court referred to the Supreme Court's interpretation in State of Orissa v. Sharat Chandra Sahu, AIR 1997 SC 1, and Madhu Bala v. Suresh Kumar, AIR 1997 SC 3104, to conclude that the Magistrate was empowered to forward a complaint under Section 498A to the police for investigation and report.

Issues: The main issue was whether the Magistrate had the authority to forward a non-cognizable complaint under Section 498A, I.P.C. to the police under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of Section 498A, I.P.C. and Section 198A of Cr.P.C. as discussed in the Supreme Court judgments. The Court held that the Magistrate was within his authority to forward the complaint to the police under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed under Section 482, Cr.P.C., and the Court upheld the Magistrate's decision to forward the complaint to the police.

Judgment :-

This petition has been filed appealing this Court to exercise its authority and command to judicially review the order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mavelikkara dated 10-1-1997 and also the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent and to quash both of them. Annexure A is a zerox copy of the complaint (drafted in Malayalam) filed by the 2nd respondent before the Magistrate and Annexure B is the English translation of the same. The order of the Magistrate dated 10-1-1997 is as follows :

"Complainant present, forward to the S.I. of police, Nooranad under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure."

The grievance of the petitioners would be that Annexure A complaint has been filed by the 2nd respondent under Section 498 A, I.P.C. before the Magistrate which is a non-cognizable one (when it is filed before the Magistrate) and therefore, the Magistrate is not empowered to forward the same to the police for investigation and report under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. section 198A of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that a complaint can be filed either before the police or before the Magistrate by the aggrieved party and her relations specifically mentioned in the Section. In such a case also, the Magistrate can take it only as a non-cognizable offence and in case the Magistrate deems it fit to be forwarded to the police for investigation and report, that ought to have been sent by the Magistrate only under section 202, Cr.P.C. and not under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. So on these above two grounds, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Babu S. Nair, is attacking the order passed by the Magistrate for forwarding the complaint under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C.

2. Mr. S. U. Nasar, learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that an offence under Section 498A becomes cognizable when it is lodged before the police by the aggrieved party and those who have been specifically mentioned in column No. 4 of the First Schedule annexed to the Code of Criminal Procedure and in case the complaint is lodged by anyone other than the person mentioned in the abovesaid column No. 4 of the Schedule before the police, that can be construed as a non-cognizable offence. Such a specific requirement in column 4 of the Schedule (complaint before police) cannot take away or oust the jurisdiction of the Magistrate while the complaint is filed before him, in taking it as a cognizable one. It is also his submission that the Supreme Court clearly held in a judgment that when a complaint is filed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate is empowered to forward it to the police for investigation and report and in such a case, the police on receipt of the complaint can register a case and investigate. In that circumstances, the complaint forwarded by the Magistrate has to be deemed as complaint as defined under Section 2(d), Cr.P.C. In the instant case on hand, the Magistrate on receipt of the complaint by the victim, had forwarded the same to the police. The police on receipt of the complaint has registered a case in Crime No. 19 of 1997 of Nooranad Police Station. And on the complaint forwarded by the Magistrate when a case is registered by the police, it can be determined that the statutory requirements of column No. 4 of the schedule (in lodging the complaint before the police by the aggrieved party and other relations) have been fulfilled and there is no violation of any statutory law.

3. On account of the above rival contentions of both, counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor, now, the legal position has to be scrutinised hereunder. Column 4 of the First Schedule appended to the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of Section 498A, IPC is as follows :

"------------------------------------------------------------------ X X X Cognizable or non-cognizable X X ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 ------------------------------------------------------------------- CHAPTER XXA




Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top