SHARMA, J.—This is an application under sec. 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing an order of the Munsiff Magistrate Barmer, dated 7th July, 1975, by which cognizance of offences punishable under secs. 500 and 505, I.P.C. was taken against the applicants on a police challan filed by the S.H.O. Police Station, Barmer, on 31st March, 1975.

2. The relevant facts giving rise to this application under Sec. 482, Cr.P.C. may be stated as follows:—

One Pir Chand file a complaint, against the applicants in the court of the Munsiff Magistrate, Barmer, under secs 500 and 505, I.P.C. on 13th March, 1975. The Munsiff Magistrate did not take cognizance of the aforesaid offences on the complaint filed by Pir Chand. The complaint, however, was forwarded to the Station House Officer, Barmer, for investigation under sec. 156(3), Cr.P.C. The Station House Officer, Barmer, registered a criminal case against the applicants under secs. 500 and 505, I.P.C. on the basis of the facts contained in the complaint tookup usual investigation into it. After thorough investigation into the matter, he submitted a charge-sheet in the court of the Munsiff Magistrate, Barmer, for taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences upon it. It appears that the learned Magistrate perused the charge-sheet and the relevant papers produced along with it and took cognizance of both the offences against the applicants and proceeded to try them. In the course of the trial he came to know that the applicants could not be proceeded against for an offence under sec. 505, I.P.C. for want of sanction to prosecute them and so he charge-sheeted the applicants under Sec. 500, IPC only.

3. The applicants raised an objection, by way of an application in writing to the continuance of criminal proceedings against them. The objection was on the ground that the Judicial Magistrate was not empowered to take cognizance of an offence punishable under Sec. 500, I.P.C. upon a police report in the absence of complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence. The Munsiff Magistrate overruled the objection raised by the applicants and dismissed their application on 9th May, 1977. The applicants have, therefore, invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the criminal proceedings pending against them in the court of the Munsiff-Magistrate, Barmer.

4. I have carefully gone through the record and heard Mr. H.M. Parekh, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. K.C. Bhandari, Public Prosecutor, for the State. Under sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 199, Cr.P.C. a complaint in a defamation case can be filed by any person aggrieved by the offence. However, there are exceptions to this general rule which are mentioned in the proviso to sub sec. (1) and sub-sec. (2). The provision contained in sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 199, Cr.P.C. is mandatory in nature as observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in G. Narasimhan vs. T.V. Chokkappa (I). If a person, who is not aggrieved by an offence punishable under Chapter XXI of the I.P.C. files a complaint, no cognizance of the offence can legally be taken on it. Non-compliance with the mandatory provisions contained in sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 199, I.P.C. renders the trail of an accused person illegal. The following observations made by their Lordships quoted below as they are relevant to the decision of the point in issue:—

"Saction 198 lays down an exception to the general rule that a complaint can be filed by anybody whether he is an aggrieved person or not, and modifies that rule by permitting only an aggrieved person to move magistrate in cases of defamation. The sec. is mandatory, so that if a Magistrate were to take cognizance of the offence of defamation on a complaint filed by one who is not an aggrieved person, the trial and conviction would be void and illegal." (Head Note A).

As stated earlier, in the instant case the Munsiff Magistrate did not take cognizance of an offence punishable under Sec, 500, I.P.C. on the complaint filed by Pir Chand against the applicants.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document