Raju Puzhankara v. NONE

-:2:-that the persons arrayed as accused in the private complaint werein any way involved in the alleged sale of worship threads andofferings by the poojaries. No poojari was also arrayed as anaccused. The Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge found thatthere was no case made out for taking cognizance of the allegedoffences since the complaint was deficient in the ingredients whichconstitute the offences alleged and also that the petitioner did notproduce any relevant material to substantiate his bald allegations.The Special Judge, therefore, dropped the proceedings and turneddown the request of the petitioner to forward the complaint forinvestigation by the Vigilance Police under Sec. 156 (3) Cr.P.C. It isthe said order passed by the Special Judge on 25-2-2008 which isassailed in this Revision.2.The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitionermade the following submissions before me:-The only power available to a Magistrate to dismiss a privatecomplaint is to be located under Sec. 203 Cr.P.C. and as per the saidprovision the Magistrate can dismiss the complaint only afterconsidering the statements on oath of the complainant and all hiswitnesses and also the result of the enquiry under Sec. 202 Cr.P.C..But here , the complaint was dismissed without even recording the -:3:-sworn statement of the complainant. If the complaint wasdeficient in materials to substantiate the alleged offences the SpecialJudge ought to have acceded to the request of the petitioner toforward the complaint to the Vigilance Police under Section 156 (3)Cr.P.C. in which the case a proper investigation would have broughtto light the necessary materials.3.I am afraid that I cannot agree with the above submissionsfully. No doubt, under Sec. 203 Cr.P.C. the Magistrate can dismiss thecomplaint only after taking cognizance of the offence. This much isclear from Section 203 itself which reads as follows:-203. Dismissal of complaint - If, after considering thestatements on oath (if any) of the complainant and ofthe witnesses and the result of the inquiry orinvestigation (if any) under section 202, the Magistrateis of opinion that there is no sufficient ground forproceeding, he shall dismiss the complaint, and in everysuch case he shall briefly record his reasons for sodoing”.Thus, dismissal of a complaint under Section 283 Cr.P.C. can only beat the post-cognizance stage. (See also Mohammed v. State ofKerala - 2001 (2) KLT (SN) 48). But there is a power in everyMagistrate to reject the complaint even at the pre-cognizance stage ifthe complaint on the face of it does not make out the offence alleged -:4:-in the complaint. In such a case, the law does not oblige theMagistrate to proceed to Sec. 200 Cr.P.C. or the subsequent sectionsin Chapter XV of Cr.P.C. and thereby take cognizance of the allegedoffence the ingredients of which are not even averred in thecomplaint. In such a case, the Magistrate undoubtedly has the powerto reject the complaint at the threshold. The decisions in CrefFinance Limited v. Sree Shanthi Homes (P) Ltd. 2005 (7) SCC467, Govind Mehta v. State of Bihar - AIR 1971 SC 1708 andNagraj v. State of Mysore - AIR 1964 SC 269 would go to reinforcethe said view . Although complaints are being dismissed by theMagistrates at the pre-cognizance stage those dismissals are withoutnoticing the real distinction between a dismissal of the complaintunder Sec. 203 Cr.P.C. at the post-cognizance stage and a rejectionof the complaint under the pre-cognizance stage. Hence suchdismissals at the pre-cognizance stage can only be treated as rejectionof the complaint.4.The request to forward the complaint under Sec. 156 (3)Cr.P.C. was also rightly turned down by the Special Judge since thecomplainant had not even prima facie convinced the Special Judgewith reference to any materials justifying a forwarding of the complaintto the police for the purpose of investigation. I, therefore, do not -:5:-find any good ground to interfere with the discretion exercised by theEnquiry Commissioner and Special Judge. This Revision is accordinglydismissed. However, it is made clear that the dismissal of thisCrl.R.P. shall not preclude the petitioner /complainant from preferringa more comprehensible complaint with adequate materials tosubstantiate his case in view of the decision in Arul V. Nair v. Stateof Kerala - 2007 (4) KHC 597. As and when such a complaint isfiled, I am sure that the Special Judge will judicially and judiciouslyapply his mind and do the needful according to law. V. Ramkumar, Judge.