Prosecutorial powers under Section 340 Cr.P.C are limited to offences specified in Section 195 Cr.P.C, reinforcing the necessity of a clear legal basis for initiating complaints.

JUDGMENT

The appeal on hand is originated from an order passed by II Additional Court of Sessions, Kozhikode (for short, ‘the trial court') in CMP No.63/2019 in S.C No.500/2015 and unnumbered CMP of 2020 dated 04.11.2020 filed by II Additional District and Sessions Court, Kozhikode before JFCM I, Kozhikode, currently pending as S.C No.203/2021 on the files of III Additional Assistant Sessions Court, Kozhikode.

2. Appellants are accused in the above cases and respondents are the complainant. A complaint was filed as above before the trial court and an order was passed on 10.03.2020 allowing the application. It was directed in the order that the complaint should be filed under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (For short, ‘the Cr.P.C’) against R2 to 8 for offences under Sections 120B , 167, 211, 193, 195, 196, 200 and 219 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, (for short, ‘the IPC ’) and Section 116 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 (for short, ‘the K.P Act’) . The Chief Ministerial Officer of the trial court was authorised by that order to file a complaint before the Magistrate Court concerned. Aggrieved by the order, the accused have approached this Court in the appeal on hand. The appellants are aggrieved by the direction issued to the Sheristadar (Ministerial Officer) of the trial court to file a complaint invoking the jurisdiction under Section 340 Cr.P.C against them before the Magistrate, Kozhikode for commission of the offences under Sections 167 , 193, 195, 196, 199, 213, 219 and 120B and under of K.P Act. On the basis of the order, the trial court, filed a private complaint through the Sheristadar before JFCM-I, Kozhikode and that is now pending before III Additional Assistant Sessions Court, Kozhikode after committal as S.C.No.203/2021. As per the allegations, while discharging their official duties on 11.07.2014 at 1.30 a.m, the 1st respondent, who is a known offender involved alongwith others in various serious crimes, armed with deadly weapons, committed dacoity. Respondent No.1 and other accused were taken into custody and crime No.750/2014 was registered at Chevayur Police Station. A case was registered as SC No.500/2015 on the files of the trial court.

The case was tried by the above court and the trial culminated in acquittal of the 1st respondent and the other accused. The 1st respondent during trial relied on the vehicle movement register kept at Chevayur Police Station. The said document was produced by him to show that the vehicle in which appellant No.1 was conducting patrol duty was halted at Chevayur Police Station and therefore, the prosecution story cannot be believed at all. Respondent No.1 also relied on the statement of a third party in defence evidence. The third party, whose statement was relied on was a prosecution witness in another case, who deposed that respondent No.1 was found by him at Chevayur Police Station on 08.07.2014. Thus giving the benefit of doubt to the 1st respondent and the other accused, they were acquitted vide Annexure A2 judgment.

3. When the trial in S.C No.500/2015 was progressing, a complaint was filed by the respondent No.1 before JFCM I Kozhikode alleging that he was falsely implicated by the appellants in Crime No.750/2014. Thus prosecution was sought against appellants for offences under Section 343, 346, 348, 211 and 465 IPC . Vide order passed as Annexure-A4, JFCM I took cognizance only for the offences under Sections 343 and 365 . The prayer for taking cognizance under Sections 211 , 465 and other offences in Annexure-A3 complaint was declined by JFCM, Kozhikode.

4. The trial held in SC No.500/2015 culminated in acquittal of the accused. The 1st respondent then preferred another private complaint before the trial court as CMP No.63/2019 seeking to invoke the power under Section 340 Cr.P.C to lodge a complaint against the appellants also for the very same offences as in Annexure A3 complaint.

5. Appellants contested the complaints before the III Addition