MARIAM BEE Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, MADRAS,
LAWS(MAD)-1970-3-26
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on March 03,1970

Mariam Bee Appellant
VERSUS
Commissioner Of Police, Madras, Respondents

JUDGEMENT

KRISHNASWAMY REDDY, J. - (1.) THIS petition has been filed by the complainant in C. C. No. 14590 of 1968 on the file of the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Egmore, Madras to direct the Commissioner of Police, Madras to file charge sheet in respect of her complaint which was forwarded to the police for enquiry and report. This prayer cannot be granted for the reason that this Court has no jurisdiction to compel the police officer to file a charge sheet. What the Court could do in cases where the police have investigated is to ask the police to submit the report under Section 173, Criminal Procedure Code It is left to the discretion of the police after the investigation of a cognisable offence, to come to an opinion whether there was a case to be proceeded against or not. Ultimately, it is for the Magistrate to agree or to disagree with the report submitted by the police officer and take further action as provided under the law. But as pointed out already, no Court can insist upon the police to file a charge sheet if in the opinion of the police, such charge sheet will not lie. As the prayer was confined only to insist upon the police to file a charge sheet, this petition has to be dismissed. But, however, as the prayer was admittedly misconceived in relation to the facts of this case, it is necessary to give a suitable direction to the Chief Presidency Magistrate.
(2.) THE facts of the case are these: In the disturbances between the students and the workers of State Transport department on the 25th and 26th March 1968, the husband of the complainant who is the petitioner in this petition was alleged to have been killed by the inmates of the Law College hostel. Immediately after the said occurrence, a Commission of Enquiry was appointed for the purpose of making an enquiry into the incidents and the commission submitted its report in May 1969 after enquiry.
(3.) IN the meanwhile, as the police did not file charge sheet against the concerned accused, the petitioner filed a complaint on 10.5.1968 before the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Madras, for an offence under Section 302, I. P. C. against certain persons whose names were not known to her. The complaint was taken on file in C. C. 14590 of 1968 on the file of the Chief Presidency Magistrate and the petitioner was examined on oath. Thereafter, the complaint was forwarded to the Commissioner of Police for enquiry and report. On 2.7.1968 a letter was received from the Commissioner of Police by the Chief Presidency Magistrate that they were filing a charge sheet and the matter was posted to 10th July 1868. But the police have not filed a charge sheet. In the course of the enquiry by the Commission, it appears that statements were recorded from various witnesses even in respect of the occurrence which is the subject matter of the present complaint. Several reminders appear to have been sent to the Commissioner of Police by the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate and on 31st October 1969, an endorsement was made by the Chief Presidency Magistrate to the effect that no report was received from the Commissioner of Police and at request, it was adjourned to 15th November 1969. This petition has, therefore, been filed to direct the Chief Presidency Magistrate to insist upon the police to file the charge sheet. After this petition was filed, on 23.12.1969, the Commissioner of Police wrote a letter to the Chief Presidency Magistrate stating that the Commission of Judicial Enquiry submitted its report to the Government and that as the Commission found on the evidence adduced by the police relating to the incident, the subject matter of the complaint herein, that there was no evidence to connect any individual or individuals in particular with the injuries sustained by the deceased, it was not proposed to file a charge sheet in the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the letter sent by the Commissioner of Police to the Chief Presidency Magistrate on 23.12.1969 cannot be taken as a report either under Section 173. Criminal Procedure Code or under Section 202. Criminal Procedure Code and further contended that the Commissioner of Police erred in having adopted the findings of the Commission of Enquiry without himself applying his mind in respect of the investigation made by the police whether there was a case to be proceeded with or not. There is undoubtedly force in this contention. The letter sent by the Commissioner of Police to the Chief Presidency Magistrate cannot be deemed to be a report either under Section 173, Criminal Procedure Code or under Section 202, Criminal Procedure Code The police must have come to an independent conclusion and submitted a report according to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code It is not known whether there was an independent investigation by the police under Ch.XIV, Criminal Procedure Code It appears from the records that the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate after recording the sworn statement of the complainant -petitioner herein, forwarded the complaint to the police for enquiry under Section 202 Criminal Procedure Code for the purpose of ascertaining the truth or falsehood of the complaint. The police, therefore, should have enquired into the matter and submitted a report. The report under Section 202 Criminal Procedure Code by the police officer was not submitted so far. The Chief Presidency Magistrate is, therefore, directed to call for a report from the police under Section 202 Criminal Procedure Code with the statements recorded by them, if any, along with their opinion and dispose it of according to law. I make it clear that the court cannot insist upon the police to file charge sheet as the prayer of the petitioner is that the police should be directed to file the charge sheet, and such a prayer cannot be granted. This petition is dismissed with the observations made above. Petition dismissed. .;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.