The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between procedures for registering a first information report and private complaints, and the inapplicability of judgments related to private complaint cases to cases instituted on a police report with joint complaints.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to to call for the entire records connected with Charge Sheet in C.C.No.33 of 2022 on the file of the learned Special Metropolitan Magistrate-II for the trial of Exclusive Trial of Land Grabbing Cases, Allikulam, Chennai and quash the same.)

This petition is filed to call for the entire records connected with Charge Sheet in C.C.No.33 of 2022 on the file of the learned Special Metropolitan Magistrate-II for the Exclusive Trial of Land Grabbing Cases, Allikulam, Chennai and quash the same.

2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner challenged the final report in C.C.No.33 of 2022 on a only ground that the complaint/information, on the basis of which first information report in Crime No. 766 of 2006 for the offences under Sections 120(b), 419, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC came to be registered, was signed by two persons, namely, Sarathkakumanu and K.Beena. The complaint/ information can be only given by only one person and not by two persons and if more than one person joined and gave the complaint, it is impermissible under law and the proceedings initiated on the basis of such complaint/information is illegal and liable to be set aside. In support of his submission, learned senior counsel for the petitioner pressed to service the following judgments reported in:-

1. 1931 SCC OnLine Cal 34: AIR 1931 Cal 646: 1932 Cri LJ 83 (Sashadhar Acharjya and another Versus Sir Charles Tegart and others);

2. MANU/TN/6105/2006 (Thethavusamy versus Radhakrishnan);

3. CDJ 2010 MHC 1043 (Swami @ Ramakrishnan Versus State by Inspector of Police, G2 Puthumanthu Police Station, Nilgiris District);

4. CDJ 2011 MHC 2973 (Maheswari & Others Versus Jayanthi & Another);

5. SCC ONLINE 357 (Narayanaswami and others Versus Egappa Reddi and others); and

6. CDJ 2017 MHC 8518 (Devarajan & Others Versus State rep. by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch, EDF-II, Vepery, Chennai & Others)

3. In response, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) and learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 submitted that the orders referred by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner related to private complaint cases. The procedure for registering a first information report on the basis of an information, investigation and trial is totally different from the procedure for institution of a private complaint and trial. In private complaint cases, an offence is taken cognizance on the basis of the complaint given by the complainant and the Magistrate shall have to examine the complainant and witnesses on oath and then, Magistrate shall take cognizance of the offences, if sufficient grounds for proceeding is made out. On the other hand, when an information in a cognizable offence is given in writing, that shall be entered in a book, namely, first information report register and from then onwards it is the duty and responsibility of the officer in-charge of the concerned police station to investigate the case and file a final report, on completion of the investigation under section 173 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the concerned learned Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence on the basis of the final report. Thus, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that judgments relied by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not applicable to the facts of this case and therefore, pray for dismissal of this petition.

4. Considered the rival submissions and perused the documents.

5. Except the ground raised by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the complaint/information signed by two persons is not maintainable and registration of the first information report, conduct of the investigation and filing of a final report in furtherance of that complaint is also illegal and therefore, the proceedings is liable to be quashed, no other ground is taken in this petition.

6. Perusal of the records shows that on the basis of the complaint by one Sarathka