Nisha Gupta, J. - (1.) This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 4.10.2008 whereby the criminal complaint has been dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
(2.) The short facts of the case are that the present petitioner filed a complaint against the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 for the offence under Section 161 I.P.C. on 4.7.2002. On 14.10.2005, the petitioner filed an application stating therein that looking to the contents of the complaint, offence under Section 388 Indian Penal Code is made out and hence in the title of the complaint, Section 161 Indian Penal Code may be deleted and Section 388 Indian Penal Code may be permitted to be stated. This application was rejected by the learned Court below and simultaneously the complaint has also been rejected on the ground that offence under Section 161 is triable by the Special Court and hence the trial Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Hence, this petition. It is pertinent to note that the complaint has been filed on 4.7.2002, which remained pending in the Court for more than six years, for the reasons best known to the trial Court and on 4.10.2008, the impugned order was passed.
(3.) The contention of the present petitioner is that the contents of the complaint reveal that the matter pertains to extortion from the petitioner. The present petitioner has not moved any application for amendment in the contents of complaint but he has applied only for correction in the relevant Section. The learned trial Court should have inquired into the matter under Sections 200 and 202 Criminal Procedure Code and thereafter should have passed reasoned order and reliance has been placed on the judgment delivered in the case of Bhim Singh v. Kan Singh, 2007(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 268 , wherein amendment in the complaint has been allowed. Section 2(d) Criminal Procedure Code deals with the definition of 'complaint', which reads as under. "2(d). '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 does not include a police report." 5. The above definition goes to show that the complaint could be oral or in writing and the main purpose of complaint is to move the Court to have action under the Code that any person has committed an offence and allegations of fact are only needed to proceed further under the Code. There is no legal requirement to allege that which specific offence has been committed by the person concerned and the learned trial Court has acted in very cursory and casual manner. There was no need for the complainant to pray for the amendment in the title of the petition as the Court has to inquire into the allegations and should record a finding that whether any offence is made out by the allegations. The Code provides a scheme under which complaint should be dealt with and Sections 200 and 202 Criminal Procedure Code are the relevant provisions. which read as under. "200.- Examination of complainant.- A Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses, and also by the Magistrate: Provided that, when the complaint is made in writing, the Magistrate need not examine the complainant and the witnesses (a) if a public servant acting or- purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties or a Court has made the complaint; or (b) if the Magistrate makes over the case for inquiry or trial to another Magistrate under Section 192: Provided further that if the Magistrate makes over the case to another Magistrate under Section 192 after examining the complainant and the witnesses, the latter Magistrate need not re- examine them. 202. Postponement of issue of process-(1) Any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorised to take cognizance or which has been made over to him under Section 192, may, if he thinks fit, postpone the issue of process against the accused, and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding: Provided that no such direction for investigation shall be made, (a) where it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session; or (b) where the complaint has not been made by a Court, unless the complainant and the witnesses present (if any) have been examined on oath under Section 200. (2) In an inquiry under sub-section (1), the Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, take evidence of witnesses on oath: Provided that if it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath. (3) If an investigation under sub-section (1) is made by a person not being a police officer, he shall have for that investigation all the powers conferred by this Code on an officer-in-charge of a police station except the power to arrest without warrant. 6. A composite reading of these provisions goes to show that if a complaint is made, meaning thereby, that allegations regarding commission of any offence has been made to the Court, the Court concerned will inquire into the matter under Sections 200 and 202 Criminal Procedure Code and after considering the material available during the inquiry or investigation as indicated in the above provisions, if the Magistrate is of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, he can dismiss the complaint or if there are sufficient grounds for proceeding, he can issue process. This is the duty of the Court to inquire into the facts of the case and arrive at a conclusion that what offence has been committed and by whom. It is not the duty of the complainant to State that which offence has been committed by the-persons against whom he has made complaint. 7. Hence, looking at the above, the impugned order of the trial Court is perverse and liable to be quashed and set aside. In the result, this revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 4.10.2008 is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the trial Court for further proceedings under the provisions of the Code as indicated above. Revision allowed.;