For Offences Relating To Marriage, Mere Forwarding Of Complaint U/S 156(3) CrPC Is Not Barred: Kerala HC

The Court was hearing a Criminal Miscellaneous Case filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash the First Information Report.

The bench of Justice A. Badharudeen observed, “The mere forwarding of the complaint under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. is not legally barred. But while taking cognizance, report of the police as part of the investigation to be reckoned as a complaint and the Magistrate shall go by the procedure…acting on the original complaint filed by the complainant, if the Magistrate intends to take cognizance of the said offence.”

Advocate P.M. Bindhumol appeared for the Appellant and Advocate Blaze K. Jose appeared for the Respondent.

In the present case when a private complaint, alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 494 of IPC, was lodged before the Magistrate, the Magistrate forwarded the same for investigation to the police and accordingly, FIR has been registered.

The Court mentioned the decision of the Supreme Court in Ushaben v. Kishorbhai Chunilal Talpada and Others reported in 2012 (6) SCC 353 where according to the Court the Apex Court considered a question, ‘where there are allegations about commission of offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC, which is a cognizable offence, and an offence under Section 494 of IPC which is non-cognizable, whether the court can take cognizance for the offence under Section 494 of IPC on the police report?’ and held in the affirmative.

The Court said that the legal position is so vivid that when a Magistrate gets a police report inclusive of Cognizable and non-cognizable offences covered by Chapter XX of IPC, the Magistrate is legally empowered to take cognizance of both, even acting upon the police report.

But according to the Court the scenario is different when the Magistrate forwards a complaint for investigation by the police involving offences covered by Chapter XX of Cr.P.C. for which procedure of 198 of Cr.P.C. to be complied. The Court said that in such cases, if at all the Magistrate directs an investigation to be done by the police by forwarding the complaint under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., the report filed by the police officer is deemed to be a complaint covered by explanation to Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. and the Magistrate could not take cognizance, acting on the said complaint and for which the Magistrate should have gone for the procedure laid down in Section 200 read with Section 198 of Cr.P.C and to taken cognizance only on the complaint, albeit the final report sent by the police officer.

Accordingly, the Court disposed of the Petition.

Cause Title: Amal Babu v. State of Kerala (Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:57539)

Appearance:

Appellant: Adv. P.M. Bindhumol and Adv. G. Bindu

Respondent: Adv. BLAZE K. JOSE, Adv. NIKHIL SANJAY, Adv. TREESA ROSE, Adv. AIRINE JOBY and PP M P PRASANTH