Mariam Bee vs The Commissioner of Police, Madras

Krishnaswamy Reddy, J.—This petition has been filed by the complainant in C. C. No. 14590 of 1968 on the file of the court of the Chief

Presidency Magistrate-Egmore, Madras to direct the Commissioner of Police, Madras to file charge sheet in respect of her complaint which was

forwarded to the police for enquiry and report. This prayer cannot be granted for the reason that this Court has no jurisdiction to compel the police

officer to file a charge sheet. Want the court could do in cases where the police have investigated is to ask the police to submit the report u/s 173

Code of Criminal Procedure. It is left to the discretion of the police after the Investigation of a cognizable offence, to come to an opinion whether

there was a case to be proceeded against or Get. Ultimately, it is for the magistrate to agree or to disagree with the report submitted by the police

officer and take further action as provided under the law. But as pointed out already, no court can insist upon the police to file a charge sheet if in

the opinion of the police, such charge sheet will not lie. As the prayer was confined only to insist upon the police to file a charge sheet, this petition

has to be dismissed. But, however, as the prayer was admittedly misconceived in relation to the facts of this case, it is necessary to give a suitable

direction to the Chief Presidency Magistrate.

The facts of the case are these: In the disturbances between the students and the workers of the State Transport department on the 25th and

26th March 1968. the husband of the complainant who is the Petitioner in this petition was alleged to have been killed by the inmates of the Law

College hostel. Immediately after the said occurrence, a Commission of Enquiry was; appointed for the purpose of making an enquiry into the

incidents and the Commission submitted its report its report in May 1969 after enquiry.

In the meanwhile, as the police did not file charge sheet against the concerned accused, the Petitioner filed a complaint on 10th May 1968

before the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Madras, for an offence u/s 302 I.P.C. against certain persons whose names were not known to her. The

complaint was taken on file in C C. 14590 of 1968 on the file of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, and the Petitioner was examined on oath.

Thereafter, the Complaint was forwarded to the Commissioner of Police for enquiry and report. On 2nd July 1968 a letter was received from the

Commissioner of Police by the Chief Presidency Magistrate that they were filing a charge sheet and the matter was posted to 10th July 1968-But

the police have not filed a charge sheet. In the course of the enquiry by the Commission, it appears that statements were recorded from various

witnesses even in respect of the occurrence which is the subject matter of the present complaint. Several reminders appear to have been sent to the

Commissioner of Police by the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate and on 31st October 1969, an endorsement was made by the Chief

Presidency Magistrate to the effect that no report was received from the Commissioner of Police and at request; it was adjourned to 15th

November 1969. This petition has, therefore, been filed to direct the Chief Presidency Magistrate to insist upon the police to file the charge sheet.

After this petition was filed, on 23rd December 1969, the Commissioner of Police wrote a letter to the Chief Presidency Magistrate stating that

the Commission of Judicial Enquiry submitted its report to the Government and that as the Commission found on the evidence adduced by the

police relating to the incident, the subject matter of the complaint herein, that there was no evidence to connect any individual or individuals in

particular with the injuries sustained by the deceased, it was not proposed to file a charge sheet in the case. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner

contended that the letter sent by the Commissioner of Police to the Chief Presidency Magistrate on 23 December 1969 cannot be taken as a

report either u/s 173 Code of Criminal Procedure or u/s 202 Code of Criminal Procedure and further contended that the Commissioner of Police

erred in having adopted the findings of the Commission of Enquiry without himself applying his mind in respect of the investigation made by the

police whether there was a case to be proceeded with or not. There is undoubtedly force in this contention. The letter sent by the Commissioner of

Police to the Chief Presidency Magistrate cannot be deemed to be a report either u/s 173 Code of Criminal Procedure or u/s 202 Code of

Criminal Procedure. The police must have a me to an independent conclusion and submitted a report according to the provisions of the Code of

Criminal Procedure. It is not known whether there was an independent investigation by the police under Chapter XIV Code of Criminal

Procedure.

It appears from the records that the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate after recording the sworn statement of the complainant-Petitioner

herein, forwarded the complaint to the police for enquiry u/s 202 Code of Criminal Procedure for the purpose of ascertaining the truth or falsehood

of the complaint. The police, therefore, should have enquired into the matter and submitted a report. The report u/s 202 Code of Criminal

Procedure by the police officer was not submitted so far. The Chief Presidency Magistrate is, therefore, directed to call for a report from the

police u/s 202 Code of Criminal Procedure with the statements recorded by them, if any, along with their opinion and dispose it of according to

law. I make it clear that the court cannot insist upon the police to file charge sheet as the prayer of the Petitioner is that the police should be

directed to file the charge sheet, and such a prayer cannot be granted.

This petition is dismissed with the observations made above.