Printed from CTCLibrary.

com - licensed to Kamal

Dated: 5-3-2024 (Page - 1 of 7)

NOVEMBER 2023 Gita v. State 509

(G. Chandrasekharan, J.)
2023 (3) MWN (Cr.) 509
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
G. Chandrasekharan, J.
Crl.O.P. No.1230 of 2023 & Crl.M.P. No.653 & 654 of 2023
30.3.2023
Gita .....Petitioner
Vs.
State, rep. by Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Team XVII, Anti-Land
Grabbing Special Cell-1, Vepery, Chennai-600 007. 2. S. Sarath Kakumanu. 3. K. Beena
.....Respondents
Criminal Procedure
Joint Complaint — Complaint/Information to Police signed by two persons — Proceedings, if,
liable to be quashed.
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 (2 of 1974), Sections 154 &
157 — Complaint/Information to Police signed by two persons —
Maintainability of — Whether registration of FIR, conduct of investigation
and filing of Final Report in furtherance of said Complaint also illegal —
Proceedings, if, liable to be quashed — Though, two persons signed in
Complaint/information in case instituted on Police Report, Trial is in
progress and reached its final stage — Prayer for quashing proceedings,
therefore, cannot be entertained. (Paras 2, 5, 8 & 15)
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 (2 of 1974), Chapters XII,
XV & XIX — Case instituted on Police Report — Case instituted
otherwise than on Police Report — Different procedures contemplated
under Code. (Paras 9 to 14)
CASES REFERRED
Devarajan v. State, rep. by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, CDJ 2017 MHC 8518 ... 2, 7
Krishnamurthy R. v. M.P. Raja, 1989 MLJ (Cri.) 13................................................................. 7
M. Ravi v. R. Palani Subramanian, 2010 (1) LW Crl. 16 .......................................................... 7
Maheswari v. Jayanthi, 2011 (3) MWN (Cr.) 319.................................................................. 2, 7
Narayanaswami v. Egappa Reddi, 1961 MWN (Crl.) 129 ......................................................... 2
Sashadhar Acharjya v. Sir Charles Tegart, 1931 SCC online Cal 34 .................................... 2, 7
Swami @ Ramakrishnan v. State by Inspector of Police, 2010 (2) CTC 723........................ 2, 7
Thethavusamy v. Radhakrishnan, MANU/TN/6105/2006 ...................................................... 2, 7
T. Mohan, Senior Counsel for R. Anishkumar, Advocate for Petitioner.
Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for Respondent No.1;
G.V. Sridharan, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 & 3.
Finding — Cr.O.P. dismissed — M.P. closed.
Prayer : This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. to to call for the entire records
connected with Charge-sheet in C.C. No.33 of 2022 on the file of the learned Special Metropolitan Magistrate-II
for the trial of Exclusive Trial of Land Grabbing Cases, Allikulam, Chennai and quash the same.
Judgment Reserved on 15.3.2022 and Pronounced on 30.3.2023

Madras Weekly Notes (Criminal) / November 2023 209

 Printed from CTCLibrary.com - licensed to Kamal
Dated: 5-3-2024 (Page - 2 of 7)

510 MADRAS WEEKLY NOTES (CRIMINAL) 2023 (3) MWN (Cr.)

JUDGMENT
1. This Petition is filed to call for the entire records connected with
Charge-sheet in C.C. No.33 of 2022 on the file of the learned Special
Metropolitan Magistrate-II for the Exclusive Trial of Land Grabbing Cases,
Allikulam, Chennai and quash the same.
2. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner challenged the Final Report
in C.C. No.33 of 2022 on a only ground that the Complaint/information, on
the basis of which First Information Report in Crime No.766 of 2006 for the
offences under Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC came
to be registered, was signed by two persons, namely, Sarathkakumanu and
K. Beena. The Complaint/information can be only given by only one person
and not by two persons and if more than one person joined and gave the
Complaint, it is impermissible under law and the proceedings initiated on the
basis of such Complaint/information is illegal and liable to be set aside. In
support of his submission, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner pressed
to service the following Judgments reported in:
1. Sashadhar Acharjya and another v. Sir Charles Tegart and others,
1931 SCC online Cal 34 : AIR 1931 Cal 646 : 1932 Cri LJ 83;
2. Thethavusamy v. Radhakrishnan, MANU/TN/6105/2006;
3. Swami @ Ramakrishnan v. State by Inspector of Police, G2
Puthumanthu Police Station, Nilgiris District, 2010 (2) CTC 723 : CDJ
2010 MHC 1043;
4. Maheswari & others v. Jayanthi & another, 2011 (3) MWN (Cr.) 319
: CDJ 2011 MHC 2973;
5. Narayanaswami and others v. Egappa Reddi and others, 1961 MWN
(Crl.) 129; and
6. Devarajan & others v. State, rep. by Assistant Commissioner of
Police, Central Crime Branch, EDF-II, Vepery, Chennai & others, CDJ
2017 MHC 8518.
3. In response, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) and learned
Counsel appearing for the Respondents 2 & 3 submitted that the Orders referred
by the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner related to Private Complaint
cases. The procedure for registering a First Information Report on the basis of an
information, investigation and trial is totally different from the procedure for
institution of a Private Complaint and trial. In Private Complaint cases, an
offence is taken cognizance on the basis of the Complaint given by the
Complainant and the Magistrate shall have to examine the Complainant and
Witnesses on oath and then, Magistrate shall take cognizance of the offences, if
sufficient grounds for proceeding is made out. On the other hand, when an
information in a Cognizable offence is given in writing, that shall be entered in a
Book, namely, First Information Report register and from then onwards it is the
duty and responsibility of the Officer-in-charge of the concerned Police Station

210 Madras Weekly Notes (Criminal) / November 2023

 Printed from CTCLibrary.com - licensed to Kamal
Dated: 5-3-2024 (Page - 3 of 7)

NOVEMBER 2023 Gita v. State 511

(G. Chandrasekharan, J.)
to investigate the case and file a Final Report, on completion of the investigation
under Section 173, Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the concerned learned Magistrate takes
cognizance of the offence on the basis of the Final Report. Thus, it is submitted
by the learned Counsel for the Respondents that Judgments relied by the learned
Counsel for the Petitioners are not applicable to the facts of this case and
therefore, pray for dismissal of this Petition.
4. Considered the rival submissions and perused the documents.
5. Except the ground raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the
Petitioner that the Complaint/information signed by two persons is not
maintainable and registration of the First Information Report, conduct of the
investigation and filing of a Final Report in furtherance of that Complaint is
also illegal and therefore, the proceedings is liable to be quashed, no other
ground is taken in this Petition.
6. Perusal of the records shows that on the basis of the Complaint by one
Sarathkakumanu and K. Beena, in the capacity of Directors of Hotel Snow
White Private Limited and 17 other companies, making allegations of land
grabbing with the use of forged Power of Attorney, the First Information
Report in Crime No.766 of 2006 for offences under Sections 120-B, 419,
420, 465, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC came to be registered. After investigation,
Respondent Police filed Final Report for the offences under Sections 120-B,
419, 420, 465, 467, 468 & 471 r/w.34 of IPC and the offences were taken
cognizance in C.C. No.33 of 2022 and it is pending.
7. Coming to the Judgments relied by the learned Counsel for the
Petitioner in support of his submissions.
(i) The Judgment reported in Sashadhar Acharjya and another v. Sir
Charles Tegart and others, 1931 SCC online Cal. 34, relates to a Private
Complaint wherein two Complainants, viz., Sashadhar Acharjya and
Suhashini Debi made a Complaint. The Court found that “The first and
most prominent fault is that it is a Joint Complaint which so far as we
know is not contemplated by the Code of Criminal Procedure. The duties
of a Magistrate under Section 200, Cr.P.C. make this clear, because in
taking cognizance of an offence on Complaint he must at once examine
the Complainant upon oath and it is obvious that if there are two or more
Complainants on the same Complaint it is physically impossible to fulfil
the provisions of that Section.” This Judgment makes it clear that in a
Private Complaint if two Complainants joined and gave a Complaint,
both the Complainants have to be examined on oath and it is not the
scheme deviced under Chapter-15 of Cr.P.C.
(ii) In the Judgment reported in Thethavusamy v. Radhakrishnan,
MANU/TN/6105/2006, two Criminal Appeals were filed challenging the
Conviction and Sentence imposed. When the Appeals were heard, it was
brought to the notice of the Court that the Complaint was preferred by
two persons, namely, Dr. J.A. Thethavusamy and Mrs. Arlette Alyisus.

Madras Weekly Notes (Criminal) / November 2023 211

 Printed from CTCLibrary.com - licensed to Kamal
Dated: 5-3-2024 (Page - 4 of 7)

512 MADRAS WEEKLY NOTES (CRIMINAL) 2023 (3) MWN (Cr.)

Learned Counsel appearing for the parties also brought to the notice of
the Court the decision in the case of Krishnamurthy R. v. M.P. Raja,
1989 MLJ (Cri.) 13, for the preposition that the Complaint made by two
persons jointly in respect of the one and the same occurrence or
transaction is not valid. It is observed in that decision as follows:
“4. As regards the validity of the Complaint is concerned, it is contended that
one Complaint cannot be filed by two persons; the learned Counsel appearing for
the Petitioners would contend that the Complaint filed by two persons jointly is
not in the contemplation of the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure and
produced before me two decisions:
(1) Sashadhar Achairya v. Sir Charles Tegari, AIR 1931 Cal. 646, wherein it was
held that “A Joint Complaint by two persons is not contemplated by the Code”, and
(2) Narayanaswami v. Egappa Reddi, 1961 MWN (Crl.) 129, wherein it was
held that “A Complaint could be filed by only one person. There is no
provision in the Criminal Procedure Code for Joint Complaints.”
The learned Counsel appearing for the other side would concede that the Complaint
filed as such was not in order and that it will be possible either to file fresh
Complaints or to see that one of the Complainants withdraws from the Complaint.
5. The resulting position is that the Complaint as it was filed is not valid; all the
subsequent steps taken by the learned Magistrate on the Complaint are to be
considered as not legal and are thereby quashed. If the Complaint is revised in a
legal manner in one way or the other, the learned Magistrate will deal with it
afresh in accordance with law.”
Following the decision reported in Krishnamurthy R. v. M.P. Raja, 1989 MLJ
(Cri.) 13, it was held that the Complaint preferred by two persons namely Dr.
J.A. Thethavusamy and Mrs. Arlette Alyisus is not valid and therefore, the
conviction recorded and sentence imposed against the Appellants were set aside.
This Judgment relates to a Private Complaint and it is not a case registered on
the basis of the Complaint/information and prosecuted by the Police.
(iii) The Judgment reported in Swami @ Ramakrishnan v. State by
Inspector of Police, G2 Puthumanthu Police Station, Nilgiris District, CDJ
2010 MHC 1043 (cited supra), is relied by the learned Counsel for the
Petitioner for the preposition that even in the case instituted on Police
Report, it was held that the Joint Complaint is not maintainable and
therefore, the Accused were acquitted. It is seen that the offences concerned
in those Criminal Appeals are Sections 376, 417, 493 & 506(ii), IPC. On the
basis of the Complaint given by De facto Complainant, First Information
Report in Crime No.135 of 2000 came to be registered for the offence under
Section 417, IPC. After investigation, Final Report was filed against the
Accused for the offence under Sections 493, 506(ii) & 376, IPC. The
Accused was found guilty and awarded punishment. Challenging the
punishment, Accused filed those Criminal Appeals. This Court, on
considering the materials produced and the evidence available, found that
Trial Court’s finding was void for non-consideration of the material evidence
and relevant factors emerging from the Prosecution case. In addition to that, it

212 Madras Weekly Notes (Criminal) / November 2023

 Printed from CTCLibrary.com - licensed to Kamal
Dated: 5-3-2024 (Page - 5 of 7)

NOVEMBER 2023 Gita v. State 513

(G. Chandrasekharan, J.)
was pointed out that this is a case of Joint Complaint given by the
Panchayatars. The Joint Complaint is unknown to Criminal procedure. Thus, it
is observed that in the case of Thethavusamy v. Radhakrishnan (cited supra),
this Court held that the Complaint made by two persons jointly in respect of
one and same occurrence is not valid in law. This is the only observation made
from the case of Thethavusamy v. Radhakrishnan (cited supra). The Accused
were acquitted mainly on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove that
the Accused subjected the Prosecutrix to sexual act against her will and
without her consent and under the false promise to marry her. The additional
ground for setting side the Prosecution case is that the Joint Complaint is not
maintainable. However, this Court is of the view that relying the Judgment
given in a Private Complaint case in Thethavusamy v. Radhakrishnan (cited
supra) for a case instituted on a Police Report and giving a finding that the
Joint Complaint given by the Panchayatars and the prosecution instituted on
that basis is not maintainable, in the considered view of the Court and with due
respect to the learned Judge, is not correct.
(iv) The other Judgment relied by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner
reported in Maheswari & others v. Jayanthi & another, CDJ 2011 MHC
2973 (cited supra), also relates to a Private Complaint case and therefore,
this Judgment is also not useful to the case of the Petitioner.
(v) The Judgment concerned in Devarajan & others v. State, rep. by
Assistant Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch, EDF-II, Vepery,
Chennai & others, CDJ 2017 MHC 8518, relates to a case where the
Complainant filed a Complaint under Section 156, Cr.P.C. On the basis of the
Complaint, First Information Report came to be registered in Crime No.42 of
2013 for the offences under Sections 406, 420 & 506(i), IPC and that
culminated into C.C. No.7142 of 2016. This Complaint was challenged for the
reasons that the Complaint was barred by limitation after a gap of 26 years,
Complaint allegations and submissions of Witnesses do not constitute an
offence of cheating and the Complaint was given by two Complainants.
Though this Court observed that the Complaint given by two Complainants is
not maintainable, relying on the decision taken in Maheswari & others v.
Jayanthi & another, CDJ 2011 MHC 2973 : 2011 (4) MLJ (Crl.) 198; and
Swami @ Ramakrishnan v. State by Inspector of Police, G2 Puthumanthu
Police Station, Nilgiris District, 2010 (2) CTC 723 : CDJ 2010 MHC 1043 :
2010 (3) MLJ (Crl.) 284; and M. Ravi v. R. Palani Subramanian, 2010 (1)
LW (Crl.) 16, this Court found that the decision taken in Maheswari & others
v. Jayanthi & another (cited supra) and M. Ravi v. R. Palani Subramanian
relate to Private Complaint cases. The decision taken in Private Complaint
case in Thethavusamy v. Radhakrishnan (cited supra) was relied in the
decision taken in Swami @ Ramakrishnan v. State (cited supra). Not only
that, the case came to be quashed on various other grounds as well.
8. On the consideration of the Judgments relied by the learned Counsel
appearing for the Petitioner, it is clear that no case was quashed for the
reason that the case instituted on the basis of a Police Report cannot be

2023 (3) Madras Weekly Notes (Criminal) /November - 33 213

 Printed from CTCLibrary.com - licensed to Kamal
Dated: 5-3-2024 (Page - 6 of 7)

514 MADRAS WEEKLY NOTES (CRIMINAL) 2023 (3) MWN (Cr.)

maintained for the reason that the Complaint/First Information was signed
by two Informants/Complainants.
9. The case instituted otherwise than on Police Report commences with the
Complaint given by the Complainant under Chapter-XV of Cr.P.C., especially
under Section 200, Cr.P.C. Once a Complaint is given, the Magistrate shall have
to examine upon oath the Complainant and the Witnesses present and reduce
into writing. If a Public servant acting or purporting to act in the discharge of
official duty or a Court has made a Complaint or if the Magistrate makes over
the case for an enquiry or trial to another Magistrate under Section 192, Cr.P.C,
it is not necessary to examine the Complainant and Witnesses. The Magistrate is
required to conduct an enquiry or investigation by a Police Officer in some cases
under Section 202, Cr.P.C. After considering the statements on oath of the
Complainant and the Witnesses and the result of the enquiry/investigation under
Section 202, Cr.P.C, if the Magistrate is of the opinion that there is no ground
for proceeding, he shall dismiss the Complaint with reasons under Section 202,
Cr.P.C. If the Magistrate is of the opinion that there is sufficient ground for
proceeding, then he can take cognizance of the offence and issue
Summons/Warrant, as the case may be.
10. Reading of these sections make it clear, the Complainant has to make out
a sufficient ground for proceeding for taking cognizance of an offence in a
Private Complaint case. After taking cognizance and after the appearance of the
Accused, the proceeding commences by following the provisions under Sections
244 to 247 of Cr.P.C under Chapter XIX. In case of Warrant cases, the
Complainant has to produce evidence in support of his case. If the Magistrate
considers that no case is made out against the Accused from the evidence, the
learned Magistrate shall discharge the Accused under Section 245(1), Cr.P.C.
Even before this stage, the Magistrate can discharge the Accused, if he considers
the charge to be groundless under Section 245(2), Cr.P.C.
11. If the Magistrate does not discharge the Accused and is of the opinion
that there is a ground for presuming that the Accused committed an offence,
then he shall frame charge/charges against the Accused under Section 246(1)
Cr.P.C. If the Accused claims to be tried and he wishes to cross-examine any
of the Witnesses, whose evidences had been taken, those Witnesses shall be
recalled for the purpose of cross-examination and re-examination under
Sections 246(4) & 246(5), Cr.P.C. Then, the evidence of remaining
Witnesses for prosecution has to be taken under Section 246(6), Cr.P.C.
Thereafter, Accused shall be called upon to enter/give his evidence and
produce his evidence under Section 247, Cr.P.C.
12. On the other hand, in a case instituted on a Police Report, it starts with
an information given to the Police in a Cognizable offence under Section 154,
Cr.P.C. If an information in a Cognizable offence case is given in writing,
substance of the information shall have to be entered in a Book to be kept by
the Officer-in-charge of the Police Station, namely, First Information Report
register. Thereafter, the Police Officer has the power to investigate the

214 Madras Weekly Notes (Criminal) / November 2023

 Printed from CTCLibrary.com - licensed to Kamal
Dated: 5-3-2024 (Page - 7 of 7)

NOVEMBER 2023 Gita v. State 515

(G. Chandrasekharan, J.)
Cognizable offence. The procedure for investigation and filing of report on the
completion of investigation are dealt under Sections 157 & 173, Cr.P.C.
Information to Police and their powers to investigate are dealt under Chapter-
XII from Sections 154 to 176, Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the Magistrate takes
cognizance of the offences upon the Police Report under Section 190, Cr.P.C.
Once the cognizance is taken, Summons/Warrant, as the case may be, issued
to the Accused. The Trial proceedings are governed by Sections 238 to 242
Cr.P.C in case of cases instituted on a Police Report in Warrant cases and
under Sections 251 to 259, Cr.P.C in case of Summons cases.
13. So far as warrant cases are concerned, after compliance of provisions
under Section 207, Cr.P.C, upon considering the Police Report and the
documents sent under Section 173, Cr.P.C., and making such examination if
any, if the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and
Accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate can discharge the
Accused, if the charge against the Accused is groundless, giving reasons
under Section 239, Cr.P.C. If upon such consideration and examination, if
any, and hearing, if the Magistrate is of the opinion that there is ground for
presuming that the Accused has committed an offence triable under the
Chapter, he shall frame Charge in writing against the Accused. If the
Accused claims to be tried, then the evidence for prosecution to be taken
followed by evidence for defence under Sections 242 & 243, Cr.P.C.
14. The analysis of these provisions abundantly made it clear that starting
from the initiation of the proceedings, for a case instituted on a Police Report
and a case instituted otherwise than on a Police Report, different procedures
are contemplated. In a case instituted on a Police Report, once the
information in cognizance offence is received and entered in the First
Information Report Register, then the Officer concerned with the particular
Police Station takes up the investigation and then it is the duty and
responsibility of the State to prosecute the Accused. On the other hand, in a
case instituted otherwise than on a Police Report, starting from the giving of
the Complaint till the completion of the trial, it is for the Complainant to take
steps to take the case forward to the next level.
15. The Judgments relied by the learned Counsel appearing for Petitioner
came to be delivered in a case instituted otherwise than on Police Report or
on the basis of the decision taken in a case instituted otherwise than on a
Police Report. Therefore, none of the decisions are useful to the case of the
Petitioner. Though two persons have signed in the Complaint/information in
a case instituted on a Police Report, now trial is in progress, reached its final
stage, the prayer for quashing C.C. No.33 of 2022 on the file of the learned
Special Metropolitan Magistrate-II for the Exclusive Trial of Land Grabbing
Cases, Allikulam, Chennai, cannot be entertained.
12. In this view of the matter, this Criminal Original Petition is
dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
 

Madras Weekly Notes (Criminal) / November 2023 215