A Protest Petition can be treated as a complaint if it meets specific requirements; however, a Magistrate's direct cognizance after a closure report is procedurally irregular and must follow correct protocols under law.

Judgment :

Chittaranjan Dash, J.

1. Heard learned counsels for both the parties.

2. By means of this application the Petitioners seek to quash the order of cognizance dated 14.02.2023 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Chhendipada in G.R. Case No.378 of 2021. The learned J.M.F.C., Chhendipada vide the aforesaid order has been pleased to take cognizance of the offences under Sections 417/420/409/506/34 of the IPC implicating the Petitioners on the basis of a complaint made to that effect by one Bansidhar Pradhan, the Opposite Party No.2 herein.

3. The background facts of the case are that Bansidhar Pradhan, the Opposite Party No.2 lodged a report with the IIC, Chhendipada P.S. on 16.04.2021 alleging some irregularities in the functioning of the institution and misappropriation of the fund of the trust i.e. Kalinga Institute of Mining Engineering and Technology (KIMET), a diploma institute. The said report was treated as FIR and Chhendipada P.S. Case No.215 of 2021 was registered and the investigation commenced. In course of the investigation, the investigating agency found no supporting evidence in respect to the allegations and submitted the closure report (F.R) holding the allegations to be a mistake of fact vide Chhendipada P.S. F.F. No. 548 dated 30.11.2011 and notice was served on the Complainant along with the copy of the report. Pursuant to the closure of the investigation and the submission of the final report, the Opposite Party No.2 submitted a Protest Petition before the learned J.M.F.C., Chhendipada whereupon, the learned court upon recording the initial statement of the Complainant and that of the witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. found sufficient material and strong ground and took cognizance.

4. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioners, while assailing the impugned order, submitted inter alia that the cognizance taken by the learned Court in the G.R. case itself is procedurally irregular and could not have been proceeded with against the Petitioners, particularly when the said G.R. case had culminated in a final report. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioners, further submitted that the Protest Petition filed by the Opposite Party No.2 in response to the notice issued by the police under Section 173 Cr.P.C. ought to have been treated as a complaint case, and that taking cognizance in the G.R. case itself is unknown to law. Accordingly, he sought quashing of the same.

5. The learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2, along with the learned counsel for the State, while not disputing the legal position regarding the manner in which the learned Court treated the Protest Petition, submitted that the same amounts only to a curable irregularity. It was further submitted that the impugned order taking cognizance of the offence does not suffer from any infirmity and, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioners seeking quashing of the impugned order is misconceived and cannot be sustained.

6. “Complaint” is defined under Section 2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The expression “Protest Petition” does not find place in the Code, yet it is a legally recognised and accepted practice enabling the complainant or victim to oppose a closure/final report submitted by the police under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Gangadhar Janardan Mharte vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in (2004) 7 SCC 768, discussed the absence of any specific provision in the Code relating to the filing of a Protest Petition. Reference was made to the decision in the matter ofBhagwant Singh vs. Commissioner of Police and Anr. reported in1983 (3) SCC 344 wherein the Hon’ble Court stresse