ORDER :

This Crl.M.C. has been filed seeking to quash the entire further proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.2143/2020 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chalakkudy.

2. The prosecution case is that on 30.05.2020 at 8.00 p.m., the accused peeped to the house of the defacto complainant. On seeing this, the husband (CW2) of CW1, the defacto complainant questioned the accused. Out of that enmity, accused abused them using filthy words and also assaulted and twisted the hand of CW2. On seeing the same, when CW3 tried to intervene, she was also assaulted. Thereby accused committed the offence punishable under Sections 323 and 294(b) of Indian Penal Code.

3. According to the learned counsel, this case has been registered as a counter to the case filed by petitioner against the husband of CW1, who has been cited as CW2 in the charge. According to him, the real incident is that, on 30.02.2020 at about 9.03 p.m., CW2, who is the husband of the defacto complainant and CW3 were consuming liquor in a car parked in front of the house of the petitioner. When the petitioner questioned the same, they attacked the petitioner with a wooden stick and hands and the petitioner sustained injury and was admitted in the hospital on the very same day. Crime No.826/2020 of Mala police station was registered in connection with that and copy of the final report is produced as Annexure-2. Annexure-4 is the discharge summary of the petitioner which would show that the petitioner was admitted in the hospital on 30.05.2020 at about 11.55 p.m.

4. It is further contended that as an off shoot to the registration of the above crime, the defacto complainant herein got admitted in the hospital immediately on the next day, i.e, 31.05.2020 and wound certificate of the defacto complainant and CW2 were produced as Annexure-3 which would show that they have been admitted on 31.05.2020 and on examination by the Doctor, no injuries are noted.

5. According to the petitioner, this complaint has forwarded under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘the Code’). The complaint was filed on 09.07.2020. It is after one month and according to him, the complaint was forwarded as per Section 156 (3) of the Code without complying 154(1) of the Code. In this context, the learned counsel drew my attention to Priyanka Srivastave and Another V. State of U.P. and Others (2015(2) KHC SN 30 : 2015 (1) KLD 699 : 2015 (4) SCALE 120 : 2015(2) KLT 451 : 2015 (2) KLJ 491 : 2015 CriLJ 2396 : AIR 2015 SC 1758 : 2015 (6) SCC 287.)

6. According to the learned counsel, procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate in forwarding the complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code is in non-compliance of Section 154(1) and 154(3) of the Code and hence, the FIR is liable to be quashed.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand would content that as per Annexure 5(b), there is specific averments that the complaint was filed before the Station House Officer, Mala, but no action was taken and hence on 04.06.2020, he filed a complaint before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chalakkudy. But no action was taken against the accused. Accordingly, complaint was filed before the learned Magistrate for forwarding under Section 156(3) of the Code. He would also contend that in Annexure 5(c) documents list, item No.1 shown as addressed to Deputy Superintendent of Police may be a mistake, actually the complaint was filed before the Station House Officer, Mala.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner in this context takes my attention to Annexure 5(b), which would show that the complaint has been filed before the Dy.S.P. on 31.05.2020 and that has been forwarded to the Station House Officer for enquiry and report by the Dy.S.P. on 05.06.2020.

9. The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand relies upon Section 36 of the Code and would contend that as per Section 36, police officers superior in rank to an officer in charge of a police station can exercis