Skip to content


Sudalaimadam and anr. Vs. the State - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1985CriLJ1310
AppellantSudalaimadam and anr.
RespondentThe State
Excerpt:
- - sundararajan, the deputy tahsildar, check post, who is said to have been obstructed in the discharge of his public function, has not given the complaint before the court, the prosecution must fail......petitioners.2. on a complaint given by one v. v. sundararajan, special deputy tahsildar 's' bend check post, puliyari, the respondent, the sub inspector of police, puliyari, filed a charge-sheet against the petitioners for an offence under section 353, i.p.c. the allegation is that on 30-11-1983 at about 3 p.m. the said v. v. sundararajan was on duty at the check post. the accused appeared there and abused all the members of the staff with vulgar words and prevented the check post staff from joining their legitimate duty. after the examination of p. w.1, the learned public prosecutor, filed a memo to the effect that no offence under section 353, i.p.c. was made out, as the accused had not used any criminal force or assaulted any person and praying for the alteration of the charge for.....
Judgment:
ORDER

S.A. Kader, J.

1. This is a petition under Section 482, Crl. P.C. to quash the proceedings in CC No. 16 of 1984, on the file of the Special Judicial Second Class Magistrate, No. II, Tenkasi. The accused are the petitioners.

2. On a complaint given by one V. V. Sundararajan, Special Deputy Tahsildar 'S' Bend Check Post, Puliyari, the respondent, the Sub Inspector of Police, Puliyari, filed a charge-sheet against the petitioners for an offence under Section 353, I.P.C. The allegation is that on 30-11-1983 at about 3 p.m. the said V. V. Sundararajan was on duty at the check post. The accused appeared there and abused all the members of the staff with vulgar words and prevented the check post staff from joining their legitimate duty. After the examination of P. W.1, the learned Public Prosecutor, filed a memo to the effect that no offence under Section 353, I.P.C. was made out, as the accused had not used any criminal force or assaulted any person and praying for the alteration of the charge for an offence under Section 186, I.P.C. The petition was allowed. Aggrieved thereby, the accused-petitioners have come forward with this petition.

3. The offence under Section 186, I.P.C. is voluntary obstruction of any public servant in the discharge of his public functions. Under Section 195(l)(a)(i) of the Crl. P.C, no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the I.P.C., except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. It is, therefore, urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that inasmuch as V. V. Sundararajan, the Deputy Tahsildar, Check Post, who is said to have been obstructed in the discharge of his public function, has not given the complaint before the court, the prosecution must fail. The contention, I am afraid, has to be accepted for, Section 195(l)(a)(i), Cri. P.C. is a total bar to the cognizance of any offence under Section 186, I.P.C. by a Court unless the complaint is given by the public servant concerned or any other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate.

4. It is pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, that the said V. V. Sundararajan has given a complaint in writing to the police and it is on that basis the police have filed a charge sheet and hence there is due compliance of the provisions of Section 195(1)(a)(i), Crl. P.C. The contention has no substance. Section 2(d), Crl. P.C. defines 'complaint' as 'any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report.' Hence, the complaint referred to in Section 195, Cr. P.C. is a complaint to the Court and not a complaint' to the Police. No doubt, explanation to Section 2(d) makes any report made by a police officer in case which discloses, after investigation, the commission of a non-cognizable offence to be a complaint But in that case, the police officer by whom such report is made shall be deemed to be the complainant What Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires is that the complainant before the Court must be the officer concerned. Inasmuch as the complaint in this case for an offence under Section 186, I.P.C. has not been preferred before the Court by the concerned special Deputy Tahsildar, B Bond check post Puliyari, who is said to have been obstructed by the petitioners-accused, this prosecution under Section 186, I.P.C. cannot stand.

5. In the result, the petition is allowed and the proceedings in CC No. 16 of 1984 on the file of the Special Judicial Second Class Magistrate, No. II, Tenkasi, are quashed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //