S. Subramaniam vs R. Natarajan

V. Kanagaraj, J.—Petitioner has filed the above Criminal Original Petition praying to call for the records relating to C.C. No. 200 of 2002

pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. I, Poonamallee and quash the same.

In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the petitioner would submit that he executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of one R.

Natarajan on 27.1.1995 at Madras in respect of his property at Plot No. 100 part in S. No. 99/2, in Ullagaram Village, Saidapet Taluk, measuring

about 1250 sq. feet, specifically agreeing thereto that the Power of Attorney Agent shall inform the petitioner before entering into any agreement of

sale in respect of the property; that without informing him he had sold his property to a third party namely Rajeswari by a registered sale deed

dated 27.3.1995.

Petitioner would further submit that the purchaser Rajeswari has constructed a building in the property and has let it out for housing the police

station which he was not informed of; that he did not receive the sale consideration from the said Natarajan, the third respondent herein; that he

cancelled the power of attorney on 22.2.2000 and the sale deed on 3.4.2000; that he preferred a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, to

pay the rent for the building to him; that in response to the said complaint, the Superintendent of Police sent a memo to the petitioner on 7.8.2002;

that as per the direction of the Superintendent of Police since then he was receiving the rent, but he received a memo. dated 22.2.2002 stating that

payment of the rent would be temporarily stopped; that in the mean time his complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Chengalpattu East dated

18.3.2000 was referred as ''mistake of fact'' on 16.4.2002 and the District Crime Branch Police registered a case against him u/s 182 of I.P.C. in

Crime No. 36/2002.

Stating that the initiation of the proceeding against the petitioner is illegal, improper and malicious the petitioner would pray to the relief extracted

supra.

During arguments the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would question the validity of the complaint initiated by the Inspector

of Police. The learned counsel would submit that such initiation of the complaint is not only inequitable to be permitted but also illegal and therefore,

the case cannot be permitted to get on with the trial since it is patently illegal; that the wrong officer has prosecuted the case u/s 185 of Cr.P.C. and

Section 182 of I.P.C.; that no Court could take cognizance of the offence which itself is bad in law; that the Inspector is incompetent to register the

case and investigate into; that since it is a complaint given to the Superintendent of Police, either the Superintendent of Police or the any officer

higher in rank than himself is competent to deal with; that at any costs the Inspector is not competent to file the complaint.

The learned counsel would also cite a decision reported in State Vs. Bala Prasad, wherein it is held:

A complaint u/s 182 of the Penal Code has to be made either by the public servant to whom information has been given, or by some other public

servant to whom he is subordinate. The public servant concerned under Sec. 195(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is the public servant to

whom the information is given. Hence where the false information was given to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, he would be the ''public

servant concerned'' within the meaning of Section 195(1)(a) and should file the complaint u/s 182, Penal Code. he fact that he sent the application

to the Station Officer of a particular Police station for investigation would not make the Station Officer the public servant concerned to whom

information was given.

In consideration of the facts pleaded, having regard to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both, the only

legal point that could be considered, at this juncture, by this Court, is that the charge being u/s 182 I.P.C that is furnishing false information with

intent to cause a public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person, which should have been prosecuted under the relevant

provisions established by law for investigating into the said charge u/s 195 Cr.P.C., wherein either the public servant concerned, who receives the

complaint in writing, or some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate, could only deal with the said case and unless the said

procedure contemplated u/s 195 Cr.P.C. is adopted, no Court shall take cognizance of the said offence committed u/s 182 I.P.C.

In the case in hand, the agreed facts are that it is the Superintendent of Police, who received the written complaint from the complainant and the

Investigating Officer should be either himself or someone higher in rank than that of the Superintendent of Police who received the complaint, but

on the contrary, it is the Inspector of Police to whom the said complaint was referred and investigated into, and therefore, taking cognizance of the

said charge laid by the Inspector of Police for an offence punishable u/s 182 I.P.C. is nothing but erroneous and illegal and hence the prayer of the

petitioner has to be answered in the affirmative quashing the proceedings in C.C. No. 200 of 2002 pending on the file of the Court of Judicial

Magistrate No. I, Poonamallee and the same is ordered accordingly.