Sudalaimadam and Another vs The State

S.A. Kader, J.—This is a petition under S. 482, Crl. P.C. to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 16 of 1984, on the file of the Special

Judicial Second Class Magistrate, No. II, Tenkasi. The accused are the petitioners.

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 S. 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 S. 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 S. 186, I.P.C. The petition was allowed. Aggrieved thereby, the accused-petitioners

have come forward with this petition.

The offence under S. 186, I.P.C. is voluntary obstruction of any public servant in the discharge of his public functions. Under S. 195(1)(a)(i) of

the Crl. P.C., no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Ss. 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, S. 195(1)(a)(i), Crl. P.C. is a total bar to the cognizance of any offence under S. 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.

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 S. 195(1)(a)(i), Crl. P.C. The contention has no

substance. S. 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 S. 195, Cr.P.C. is a complaint to the Court and not a complaint to the Police. No doubt, explanation to S. 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 S. 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 S. 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 S. 186, I.P.C. cannot stand.

In the result, the petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C. No. 16 of 1984 on the file of the Special Judicial Second Class Magistrate, No.

II, Tenkasi, are quashed.

Petition allowed.