B.S. Somasundaram, J.
1. (1) Thiru Rajakumar Bhagwatsaran, the petitioner herein, stands charged with an offence under Section 75 of the City Police Act before the Honorary Presidency Magistrate at Madras. He has filed the petition Criminal M.P. No. 1938 of 1970 for quashing these proceedings. He has filed an affidavit, and in it he has averred that he has initiated proceedings against certain Police Officers in competent Courts and that the present prosecution has been launched against him so as to make him withdraw these proceedings. He has further averred that on 8th June, 1970 at 9 A.M. one Gajapathy of Byrang Jang Bahadur Street, Madras, knocked at his door and abused him when he came out. He gave a phone message to the emergency policy. They came and took that person in the Van. He gave a complaint about it, but without proceeding against him, they have chosen to file a case against him under Section 75 of the City Police Act. He has also produced the summons received by him. He contends that this summons does not contain the necessary details regarding the Court, offence, etc., On these grounds, he wants the proceedings to be quashed.
2. Petitioner has argued his case in person in this Court, and during the course of the arguments, he raised another question that the complaint on which the summons has been issued relates to a non-cognizable offence, and that as such the police should not have investigated it without obtaining the orders of the Court.
3. Crl.M.P. No. 2100 of 1970 was filed by him to call for the records maintained in the Control Room in the Office of the Commissioner of Police, for registering the phone messages received on 8th June, 1970. The learned Public Prosecutor has produced a copy of this message. The extract produced by him shows that on 8th June, 1970 at 9-54 A.M. the petitioner had given the following message, 'Disturbance is going on at the said address. Please send police and take action.'
On this message, the Assistant Sub-Inspector has sent a party lo their place. The petitioner and Gajapathy were taken by the police party to the police station in their van, and they reported that their enquiry disclosed that there was some 'thagarar' between these two persons. Subsequently, the Sub-Inspector had charged the petitioner under Section 75 of the City Police Act. The charge-sheet shows that there Was a disturbance in the Public Road. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Sub-Inspector has no jurisdiction to investigate a non-cognizable offence without the orders of the Court. The learned Public Prosecutor states that granting that the report is an invalid one, still it would fall under Clause (a) or (b) of Section 190(1), Criminal Procedure Code. The report of a Police Officer on a non-cognizable offence, which he was not authorised by a competent Magistrate to investigate, would amount to a complaint under Section 190(1)(a) Criminal Procedure Code. It is now well settled that the police report mentioned in Section 190(1)(b), Criminal Procedure Code, is not limited to a report mentioned in Chapter XIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The word 'any' in Section 190(1)(b) is comprehensive enough to include a report lodged by even a Police Officer other than the Officer, who made the investigation.
4. The petitioner next contends that he is a person aggrieved in the disturbance and that the Sub-Inspector has launched the proceedings just to make him withdraw certain proceedings which he had taken in some Courts against the Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner and some other police officials. This is a matter which he has to urge, agitate and substantiate at the trial and this cannot be a ground for quashing the proceedings. Crl.M.P. No. 1938 of 1970 is dismissed. Crl.M.P. No. 2100 is closed.