IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST AUGUST 2011 / 9TH BHADRA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 4998 of 2010(B) ------------------------- CC.2290/2010 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, IRINJALAKUDA .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ------------------------------------------ SUDHEESH P.V., MOTOR TRANSPORT INSPECTOR, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, PERIPARAMBIL HOUSE, MOOTHRIKKARA DESOM, PARAPPOOKKARA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN SMT.P.MAYA SRI.UNNI SEBASTIAN KAPPEN RESPONDENT(S): DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. RAGHU V.S., P.C.5058, PUDUKKADA POLICE STATION. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. B.JAYASURYA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No. 4998 of 2010 APPENDIX: PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A: TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.No.2290/2010 OF THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, IRINJALAKUDA. ANNEXURE B: TRUE COPY OF THE 161 STATEMENT OF THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT. ANNEXURE C: TRUE COPY OF THE 161 STATEMENT S.I. OF PUDUKKAD POLICE STATION. ANNUXURE D: TRUE COPY OF THE 161 STATEMENT OF THE CONSTABLE OF PUDUKKAD POLICE STATION. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE. Kp/- N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.4998 of 2010 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of August 2011 O R D E R The petitioner challenges in this petition the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate on the report filed by the police under Sec.173(2) Cr.P.C. alleging offence punishable under Sec.186 IPC. The learned counsel for the petitioner is perfectly justified in his submission that there is bar under Sec.195(1) Cr.P.C. in taking cognizance of the offence under Sec.186 IPC without a complaint in writing. But here the report is filed by the Investigating Officer under Sec.173(2) Cr.P.C. who is not the complainant. Hence the cognizance taken is bad in law. It is thus quashed. This Crl.M.C. is allowed as stated above. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Jvt