2.17.1 Nature and scope of complaint Complaint is an expression of grievance to Magistrate. When an offence is committed, the victim or the aggrieved party has two options namely a) to make a report to the officer-in-charge ofa police station or b) to file a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate. When a report is made to police, police will investigate the offence. When a complaint is made to the Magistrate, the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence. The Magistrate must not refer the complaint to a police officer. Thus, report is made to the police and complaint is made to the Magistrate by which a criminal case may be initiated. Section 2 (d) ofthe Code provides that ‘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’. 2.17.2 Examination of complainant Section 200 of the Code provides that a Magistrate taking cognizance ofan 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 Scanned with CamScannerthe Magistrate. Under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the Magistrate himselfexamines the complainant and the witnesses and records the substance of the same. 2.17.3 Essential ingredients of complaint a. Itmust be in writing, though oral: complaint is permissible . It must be specify the name of the offender, ifit is known Tt must specify the offence . Itmust state facts relating to offence It must specify place of offence It must be addressed to the Magistrate It must havea prayer to take action against the perpetrators It should be about a non-cognizable offense It must be signed by the complainant epee mp aes 2.17.4 When complaint is made? When a Police Officer refiuses to register FIR and investigate, a complainant or informant has a right to approach the Magistrate by filing a complaint. When sucha complaint is received, it is for the Magistrate to decide whether he shall take cognizance of the complaint or shall forward the complaint to the Station House Officer for investigation as provided under Section 156 (3) of the Code. If the Magistrate decides to forward the complaint under Section 156 (3), it is an order passed at the pre-cognizance stage, before taking Cognizance of the complaint. Rasiklal Dalpatram Thakkar v. State of Gujarat and Others, AIR 2010 SC715, it has been held that the investigating agency cannot refrain from Conducting investigation on the ground that it had no territorial jurisdiction to Investigate offence. 2175 Postponement of issue of process Section 202 of the Code empowers the Magistrate to postpone the issue of Process for compelling the attendance of the person complained against and Tay either inquire into the case himselfor direct an inquiry or investigation by any Magistrate subordinate to him or by a police-officer, or by such other Person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of ascertaining the truth or falsehood ofthe complaint, A Magistrate may refer a case under Section 156 (3) of the to the police before taking cognizance of the complaint or under Section 202 of the Code after taking cognizance of the complaint. Scanned with CamScannerRosy and Another v. State of Kerala and Others, AIR 2000 SC 63 7, Section 200 requires a Magistrate taking cognizance ofan offence ona complaint to examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present. The proviso to the said Section carves out an exception in eases where a complaint is filed by a public servant acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his Official duties or in cases where the Court has made the complaint. In such Cases, complainant and witnesses need not be examined. Ifhe is satisfied that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, he can straightway issue Process. At this Stage, the Magistrate has three options i) to issue process on the basis of complaint, ifhe is satisfied that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; or ii) to dismiss the complaint; or iii) to hold an enquiry. National Bank of Oman v. Barakara Abdul Aziz, (2013) 2 SCC 488, it has been held that in cases where accused resides beyond area over which Magistrate concerned exercises jurisdiction, it is incumbent upon Magistrate to carry out an enquiry or order investigation under Section 202 before issuing process. In present case matter remitted to Magistrate to pass fresh orders in compliance with Section 202 uninfluenced by prima facie conclusions of High Court regarding alleged offence of cheating. Irshad Khan v. State of U.P, 2014 (84) ACC 95 (All), it has been held that that it is manifest from bare reading of Section 202 of the Code that the learned Magistrate may either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made bya police officer or by such person as he thinks fit, but certainly the Magistrate cannot resort to inquire into the case himselfand also direct investigation by a police officer simultaneously. Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra and Another, AIR 2014 SC 957, ithas been observed that at the complaint stage, the Magistrate is merely concerned with the allegations made out in the complaint and has only to prima facie satisfy whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused and it is not the province of the Magistrate to enquire into a detailed discussion on the merits or demerits of the case. The scope of enquiry under Section 202 is extremely limited in the sense that the Magistrate, at this stage, is expected to examine prima facie the truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint. Magistrate is not expected to embark upona detailed discussion of the merits or demerits of the case, but only consider the inherent probabilities apparent on the statement made in the complaint. Chandra Babu @ Moses v. State through Inspector of Police and Others, AIR 2015 SC 3566, it has been held that if the Magistrate was satisfied that a prima facie case had been made out to go to trial despite the final report Scanned with CamScannersubmitted by the police, in such an event, he would have to proceed on the pasis of the police Feport itselfand cither inquire into the matter or commit it to the Court of Session ifthe same was found to be triable by Sessions Court. KS. Joseph v. Philips Carbon Black Ltd. and Another, AIR 2016 SC 2149, it has been observed that the amended Section 202 of CrPC has a purpose in requiring the concerned Magistrate to postpone the issue of process against the accused ifhe is residing at a place beyond the area of his jurisdiction and to hold an enquiry or direct an investigation by a police officer or any other person for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. It is to avoid unnecessary harassment to the proposed accused. Insuch an enquiry, the Magistrate may take evidence of witness on oath but in view of Section 145 of the Act, complainant's evidence on affidavit will also be permissible for the purpose of such enquiry. Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khaziri Mohammad Tunda and Others, (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 124, it has been observed that there must be sufficient indication in the order passed by the Magistrate that he is satisfied that the allegations in the complaint constitute an offence and when considered along with the statements recorded and the result of inquiry or report of investigation under Section 202 CrPC, ifany, the accused is answerable before the criminal court, there is ground for proceeding against the accused under Section 204 CrPC, byissuing process for appearance. The application of mind is best demonstrated by disclosure of mind on the satisfaction. If there is no such indication in a case where the Magistrate proceeds under Section 190/204 CrPC, the High Court under Section 482 CrPC is bound to invoke its inherent power in order to prevent abuse of the power of the criminal court. To be called to appear before the criminal Court as an accused is serious matter affecting one's dignity, selfrespect and image in society. Hence, the process of criminal Court shall not be made a weapon of harassment. Scanned with CamScanner2.18.1 Nature and scope of dismissal of complaint Section 203 of the Code provides pro visions for the dismissal of the complaint under certain contingencies. A Magistrate can dismiss a complaint if after considering the statement on oath ifany of the complainant and the witnesses and the result of the investigation or inquiry if any under Section 202 there is in his judgment no sufficient ground for proceeding. The Magistrate can do so after briefly recording the reasons for his so doing. The explanation to Section 403 enacts that the dismissal ofa complaint is not an acquittal for the purposes of that Section. The purpose of the Section is to protect the person who has been acquitted from liability to be tried for the same offence. Thus, there is no provision of the Code which declares that the dismissal of a complaint under Section 203 shall bar the Magistrate's jurisdiction to bring the offender to justice. 2.18.2 Second complaint If once the Magistrate had exercised his power under Section 203, Criminal Scanned with CamScannerProcedure Code, and dismissed such aco} would be barred is a matter which will each case. Thus, an ordi Code, is no bar to the e: mplaint, whether a second complaint very much depend upon the facts of ler of dismissal under Section 203, Criminal Procedure ntertainment of'a second complaint on the same facts but it will be entertained only in exceptional circumstances, Eg. where the previous order was passed on an incomplete record or ona misunderstanding ofthe nature of the complaint or it was manifestly absurd, unjust or foolish or where new facts which could not with reasonable diligence, have been brought on the record in the previous Proceedings have been adduced. Jatinder Singh and Others v, Ranjit Kaur, AIR 2001 SC 784, it has been held that there is no provision in the Code or in any other statute which debars complainant from filing a second complaint on the same allegation as in the first complaint. Mahesh Chand vy. B. Janardhan Reddy and Another, AIR 2003 SC 702, has been pointed out that it is settled law that there is no statutory bar in filing a second complaint on the same facts. In a case where a previous complaint is dismissed without assigning any reasons, the Magistrate under Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 may take cognizance of an offence and issue process if there is sufficient ground for proceeding. Jatinder Singh and Others v. Ranjit Kaur, AIR 2001 SC 784, it has been held that dismissal ofa complaint on the ground of default was no bar fora fresh Complaint being filed on the same facts. Ranvir Singh v. State of Haryana, (2009) 9 SCC 642, it has been held that ifthe complaint had been dismissed for failure of complainant to put in the Process fees for effecting service and held that in such a fact and situation second complaint is maintainable. Poonam Chand Jain and Another v, Fazru, AIR 2010 SC 659, it has been held that the dismissal of first complaint on merits and the second complaint Onalmost identical facts can be entertained only in exceptional circumstances. it Scanned with CamScanner