IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2011 / 28TH ASWINA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 3470 of 2011() ------------------------- ST.2555/2009 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, ATTINGAL .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- NAAZIMUDHEEN, S/O. SYEDU MOHAMMED KANNU, SHEMI MANZIL, ANDOORKONAM DESOM, ANDOORKONAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED RESPONDENT(S): STATE -------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY POLICE SUPERINTENDENT, CBCID, S.I.G-I, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.R.REMA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.M.C. NO. 3470/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS ANNEXURE A : TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED AGAINST THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE JUDICIAL 1ST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, ATTINGAL. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------- Cr.M.C.No.3470 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of October, 2011. O R D E R The petitioner is the accused in S.T.No.2555 of 2009 on the file of JFCM-II, Attingal. The petitioner/accused in this case was stated to have earlier filed a complaint before the Magistrate alleging offences under Sections 420 and 468 of IPC. That complaint was forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. After investigation, that case was referred as false. The Investigating Officer (Dy.S.P.[CB] CID) then filed a complaint against this petitioner (who was the complainant in the earlier complaint) alleging that the petitioner has committed offence under Section 193 of IPC. The cognizance was taken by the court on the complaint filed by the Dy.S.P. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the cognizance taken by the court is bad, since the Dy.S.P. cannot be the complainant as mentioned in 2 Cr.M.C.No.3470 of 2011 Section 195(1)(b)(i) of Cr.P.C. If actually the earlier complaint filed by the petitioner was false, then that was a matter in respect of which the complaint should have been filed by the court, after following the procedure prescribed and not by the Investigating Officer, who can only refer the case as false or on any other ground. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the court below has omitted to take note of the bar contained in Section 195(1) (b)(i) of Cr.P.C. The cognizance was not taken based on a complaint in writing of that court ( JFCM-II, Attingal), and hence the cognizance taken by the court below is to be quashed. In the result, this petition is allowed and further proceedings in S.T.No.2555 of 2009 on the file of JFCM-II, Attingal, is quashed. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN Judge. ami/