P.D. Rajan, J.

1. The revision petitioner, who is the accused in CMP 1303/12 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-1, Idukki challenges the order of taking cognizance for offence punishable under Section 323 IPC. The second respondent is a conductor working at KSRTC, Thodupuzha depot and the petitioner is working as clerk in the District Police Chief's Office, Idukki. The complainant's case is that on 22/04/2011 at 4.45 pm, while he was proceeding to Alappuzha, the revision petitioner boarded the bus from Kuyilimala bus stop in front of the Collectorate, Idukki. When he approached the petitioner for issuing the ticket, she told that she is working in the District Police Chief's Office and she need not take any bus ticket. When petitioner refused to accept this argument, she got down from the bus at the bus stop near the police camp after ringing the police control room. When the bus reached at Moolamattom depot, the Station Master asked them to cancel the trip stating that there is a complaint against the driver. Subsequently, the second respondent and driver were taken into custody by the Police and brought in the Idukki Police Station. While the talks were going on, the accused came forward and slapped on the left cheek of the complainant, as a result he sustained injury. Subsequently, complainant was produced before the Judicial First Class Magistrate and was enlarged on bail. He was admitted at Taluk Hospital, Thodupuzha and he filed a complaint. On the basis of information given by the complainant, Idukki Police registered a crime 236/11, which was later referred as false. Being aggrieved by that, second respondent filed the above petition, in which, learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 323 IPC.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner contended that 18 witnesses were examined by the police including the media persons and they did not depose about the commission of offence. The second complaint (Annexure-A) was filed on the same allegation. Therefore, the Trial Court without considering the final report, took cognizance of the offence and issued process. In the circumstance, as per Annexure-J order, this Court set aside the order and remanded the case for fresh consideration. After that direction, the Trial Court passed Annexure-K order, which is wrong, illegal and without jurisdiction.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent contended that the refer report of the police contains serious illegality and there is no application of mind. The officer-in-charge of a Police Station has to follow the procedures under Section 155 of Cr.P.C., as and when the information of a non-cognizable case is given to him. Without complying the formalities provided, he conducted an investigation with regard to a cognizable offence and filed a final report, which is against law.

4. The averments of the second respondent in CMP 1303/12 was that, the revision petitioner assaulted him in front of the Sub Inspector of Police by slapping on the left cheek. As a result, there was swelling and he was treated in the Taluk Hospital. On the basis of that allegation, the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Idukki took cognizance of offence under 323 Cr.P.C.

5. The word 'complaint' is explained under Section 2(d) of the Cr.P.C., 'complaint' means, any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report. 'Cognizable offence' is mentioned under 2(c), which means, an offence for which, and 'cognizable case' means a case in which, a Police Officer may, in accordance with the First Schedule or under any other law for the time being in force, arrest without warrant. 'Non-cognizable offence' is mentioned under 2(i), which means an offence for which and non-cognizable case means a case in which, a Police Officer has no authority to ar