The District Collector cannot order police investigations on non-cognizable offenses without following due procedure under the CrPC.

O R D E R

The 1st respondent herein, who was the Sub Collector and the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Malappuram, had preferred Annexure-VIII representation before the District Collector, Malappuram, complaining about harassment from his Junior Officer, who is none other than the petitioner herein.

2. In fact, Annexure-VIII does not reveal any cognizable offence at all. Immediately on getting Annexure- VIII, the District Collector, Malappuram forwarded Annexure- VIII to the District Police Chief, Malappuram, thereby requesting for urgent action and with a direction to register a First Information Report immediately. On getting Annexure-

VIII, even without recording the statement of the 1st respondent, the Sub Inspector of Police, Perinthalmanna registered Annexure-X First Information Report, thereby registering Crime No.1210 of 2014, for the offences under Section 506(i) IPC and Section 118(d) of the Kerala Police Act.

3. The narrations made in Annexure-VIII do not contain necessary ingredients to bring out any such offence as mentioned in 118(d) of the Kerala Police Act as it then stood. Subsequently, the Apex Court has struck down Section 118(d) of the Kerala Police Act as unconstitutional.

4. Annexure-X clearly shows that the crime was registered based on the directions issued by the District Collector on the basis of Annexure-VIII, which was forwarded to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Perinthalmanna.

5. It seems that the Sub Inspector of Police, Perinthalmanna has given a go by to the procedure contained under Section 155(1) and (2) Cr.P.C. As per Section 155(1) Cr.P.C., when information was given to an officer in charge of the Police Station, with regard to the commission of a non-cognizable offence, he shall enter or cause to be entered the substance of the information in the book meant for the same and refer the informant to the Magistrate. Here, Annexure-VIII had never revealed the commission of any cognizable offence. At the most, it can be stated that there were glimpses of some materials showing an offence under Section 506(i) IPC. Apart from that, Annexure-VIII was also not specific in bringing out an offence under Section 506(i) IPC. Specific details were not shown. As per Section 155(2) Cr.P.C., no police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial.

6. The District Collector has no power or authority to order an investigation under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Even by exercising the powers of an Executive Magistrate, a District Collector cannot order an investigation under Section 155(2)

Cr.P.C., since an Executive Magistrate is not a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial.

7. Matters being so, the Sub Inspector of Police, Perinthalmanna could not have validly registered Crime No.1210 of 2014 based on Annexure-VIII, coupled with the directions of the District Collector, Malappuram. The entire procedure adopted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Perinthalmanna are per se illegal and the and Annexure-X First Information Report in Crime No.1210 of 2014 of the Perinthalmanna Police Station and all further proceedings based on it, as against the petitioner herein, are liable to be quashed.

8. At the same time, the 1st respondent is at liberty to have recourse to the procedure available under the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 for initiating criminal proceedings, in case, he is entitled to.

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed and Annexure-X First Information Report in Crime No.1210 of 2014 of the Perinthalmanna Police Station and all further proceedings based on it, as against the petitioner herein, are quashed, of course with the above liberty to the 1st respondent.