Back
2005 Supreme(Mad) 298
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM.
M. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.
Krishnan Moopan
Versus
State of Kerala
Crl.R.P.No.1154 of 1995.
Decided On : 18th February, 2005.
S.Aravindakshan Pillai and Santha, for Petitioner.
P.A.Raziya, Public Prosecutor and S.Rajeev, for Respondent.
Sec.250 of Crl.P.C. applies only to cases instituted upon a complaint or upon information given to a Police Officer or Magistrate, and the same Magistrate who initiated the action must pass the final orders.
Headnote:
Sec.250 of Crl.P.C. - Criminal Procedure Code - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was acquitted of an offence under Sec.379 of the Indian Penal Code and the Magistrate directed the Sub-Inspector to show cause why compensation shall not be paid under Sec.250 of Crl.P.C. The Sub-Inspector challenged the order before the Sessions Court, which set aside the Magistrate's order. The petitioner contested the decision, arguing that he was not heard by the Sessions Judge and that the case should have been remitted back to the Magistrate instead of being closed.
Finding of the Court:
The Magistrate's initiation of proceedings under Sec.250 of Crl.P.C. against the Sub-Inspector was illegal and did not stand. The Sessions Judge rightly set aside the Magistrate's order as the procedure under Sec.250 was not followed. The Court also found that the case could not be remanded back to the Magistrate for fresh disposal, as only the Magistrate who initiated the action could pass the final order.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of the Magistrate's initiation of proceedings under Sec.250 of Crl.P.C. against the Sub-Inspector, the failure to follow the procedure under Sec.250, and the question of remitting the case back to the Magistrate for fresh disposal.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that Sec.250 of Crl.P.C. applies only to cases instituted upon a complaint or upon information given to a Police Officer or Magistrate, and the proceedings cannot be initiated against a Police Officer who submitted a report under Sec.173(2) of Crl.P.C. The Court also emphasized the narrow scope of the enquiry contemplated under Sec.250 and the requirement for the same Magistrate to initiate action and pass the final orders.
Final Decision: The criminal revision petition was dismissed, and the order of the learned Sessions Judge was upheld.
The circumstance where information given to a police officer is relevant pertains to cases initiated upon such information that can be classified as a complaint or a report under the relevant legal provisions. Specifically, if a person provides information to a police officer or a magistrate that leads to the institution of a case, this constitutes a basis for initiating proceedings under the law. However, it is important to note that this type of information must be of a nature that qualifies as a complaint or an admissible report, and the case must be instituted accordingly.
In the context of proceedings under the relevant section, the law emphasizes that the information must be received from a source that qualifies as a complainant or as a person providing a report that can be treated as a complaint. The scope of such information is narrow, and it must be distinguishable from a police report or a report submitted by a police officer in the course of investigation. The information should be directly from a person who has made an allegation or provided details that can be considered a complaint, which then can serve as a basis for further legal action.
Revision petitioner was the accused in C.C.No.84 of 1990 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Cherthala. The charge was for the offence under Sec.379 of Indian Penal Code. Petitioner was acquitted. While acquitting the learned Magistrate directed 2nd respondent, Sub-Inspector who had arrested the petitioner and registered the crime to show cause why compensation shall not be paid under Sec.250 of Crl.P.C. Second respondent showed cause in M.C.No.21 of 1993. But he was directed to pay compensation of Rs.3000. Second respondent challenged the order in Crl.A.No.144 of 1993 before Sessions Court, Alappuzha. Learned Sessions Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Magistrate. Accused is challenging that order in the revision contending that he was not heard by the learned Sessions Judge and even if there was any illegality or irregularity, learned Sessions Judge should have remitted the case back to the Magistrate and should not have closed the case.
2. Heard advocate Smt. Santha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Rajeev, counsel appearing for the second respondent.
3. C.C.No.84 of 1990 was a case taken cognizance of by the learned Magistrate on a report submitted by the Sub- Inspector of Police, Pattanakkad who was examined as P.W.6 therein under Sec.173(2) of Crl.P.C. That case was suo motu registered by the second respondent in his capacity as Sub-Inspector of Police, Cherthala Police Station. Prosecution case was that petitioner was found in suspicious circumstances on the midnight of 10.11.1989 by the second respondent and he was arrested and crime No.348 of 1989 of Cherthala Police Station was registered under Secs.41(1)(d) and 102 of Crl.P.C. Second respondent conducted the investigation and found out that petitioner had committed an offence under Sec.379 of I.P.C. The second respondent finding that the offence was not committed within his jurisdiction but within the jurisdiction of Pattanakkad Police Station transferred the case records to the Pattanakkad Police Station. The Sub-Inspector of that Police Station completed the investigation and laid the charge before the learned Magistrate which was taken cognizance of. The learned Magistrate while acquitting the revision petitioner herein held that the second respondent registered the case without any justification and as a result revision petitioner had to be in jail for three days and directed registration of a case under Sec.250 of Crl.P.C. Second respondent defended the proceedings under Sec.250 of Crl.P.C before learned Magistrate. But without considering the question whether there was reasonable ground for making the accusation solely relying on his earlier finding directed second respondent to pay compensation. When second respondent challenged it, the learned Sessions Judge finding that no enquiry as contemplated under Sec.250 of Crl.P.C. was conducted holding that the learned Magistrate should not have acted on his earlier finding and instead should have independently considered whether there was any reasonable cause for the second respondent to register the case set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate. The question is whether that order is legal and proper.
4. Advocate Sri. Rajeev relied on the decisions of the High Court of Bombay in Mohammed Meera v. Dattatraya Babaji A.I.R. 1974 Bom.36, and the High Court of Sind in Mohammad Hashim v. Emperor A.I.R. 1940 Sind 134, and argued that the learned Magistrate could not have proceeded against the second respondent under Sec.250 of Crl.P.C, and if at all the Magistrate could have proceeded only against the complainant or informant to the Police or the Magistrate.
5. Sec.250 of Crl.P.C.reads:
“(1) If in any case instituted upon complaint or upon information given to a Police Officer or to a Magistrate, one or more persons is or are accused before a Magistrate of any offence triable by a Magistrate, and the Magistrate by whom the case is heard discharges or acquits
