Vijay Kumar vs State of Bihar

P.K. Sarkar, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the State.

Main grievance of the Petitioner is that his protest/complaint petition has been dismissed only on the ground that no name of any accused has been disclosed in that complaint petition. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that u/s 2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the complaint has been defined as ''complaint'' means 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 it does not include a police report. Accordingly it is submitted that the learned Magistrate should have examined the complainant and given opportunity to produce the withnesses and follow the procedure as prescribed u/s 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thus the impugned order passed by the Magistrate on the Petitioner''s complaint without going into the details and without assigning any proper reasons is not correct. Hence it is submitted that the said impugned order be set aside and he, may be given an opportunity to be heard.

The learned Counsel for the State, however, is not able to show anything on which the aforesaid prayer of the Petitioner can be disallowed. In the circumstance of the case I think that the learned Magistrate should examine the complaint petition u/s 200 Code of Criminal Procedure and follow the procedure prescribed therein and thereafter take a decision in accordance with law. Hence the impugned order dated 6.2.1997 is set aside and the learned Magistrate is directed to consider the complaint petition afresh in the light of the aforesaid findings.

This revision application is, accordingly, disposed of at the stage of admission itself.