Sashikant Rajguru v. State

order of the Magistrate, and files a charge sheet, such a charge sheet can be treated as a complaint. The judicial pronouncement has been given statutory recognition by adding the explanation to the definition of complaint in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In taking this view, I am

fortified by the decisions of this Court in "Ranbir Prakash vs. State" 27 (1985) DLT 242 and "Narain Singh vs. State" 1986 Rajdhani Law Reporter 545. Similar view was taken in "Chaman Prakash vs. State" 2007

(3) JCC 1983, "Kamal Kishore Kalra vs. State" 151 (2008) DLT 546 and a recent decision of this Court in Crl.M.C. 642/2009 decided on 11th December, 2009. The cognizance on a complaint filed by a public servant, in discharge of his official duties can be taken without examining him and other witnesses. Hence the cognizance taken in this case cannot be said to be bad in law.

For the reasons given in the preceding paragraphs, I find no merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed.

(V.K.JAIN) JUDGE MARCH 17 , 2010 'sn'

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Crl.M.C. No.3690/2009 % Reserved on: 16th March, 2010 Date of Decision: 17th March, 2010 # SASHIKANT RAJGURU ..... Appellant ! Through: Ms. Kamal Joshi, Adv. versus $ STATE ..... Respondent ^ Through: Mr. Jaideep Malik, APP * CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be No reported in the Digest? : V.K. JAIN, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 20th April, 2009 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed a Revision Petition filed by the petitioner against the charge framed against him under Section 506 of IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant had repeatedly raped the prosecutrix between 14.8.2000 to 5.3.2001. The FIR was accordingly registered under Section 376 of IPC and chargesheet against the petitioner was filed under Section 376, 506(1) and 342 of IPC. Vide order dated 18.11.2004, charges against the petitioner was framed for the offence punishable under Section 420, 328, 366 and 376 of IPC. However, vide subsequent order dated 30.11.2004, Section 376 and 420 were deleted and a charge under Section 506 of IPC was directed to be framed against the petitioner. This Court vide order dated 4.4.2005, remanded the matter to the Additional Sessions Judge for sending the case to the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, since offence under Section 506 was triable by the Magistrate. However, the learned Magistrate again committed the case to Court of Sessions noting that this Court had not deleted the charges punishable under Section 328 and 366 of IPC, both of which were triable by Court of Sessions. This Court vide order dated 14.9.2007 deleted the offence punishable under Section 328 of IPC and clarified that the petitioner was to be charged only for the offence under Section 506 of IPC. The learned Magistrate accordingly framed charge against the petitioner under Section 506 of IPC. 3. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought quashing of the charge solely on the ground that the offence under Section 506 of IPC being non-cognizable, the Police could not have carried out investigation without order of the Magistrate under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. and, therefore, the cognizance taken and the charge framed against the petitioner is bad in law. 4. A perusal of the judgment of this Court in Narendra Kumar and Others vs. State And Others, 2004 CRL.L.J.2594, would show that vide notification dated 11.1.1933 issued under Section 10 of Criminal Amendment Act (1932), the then Chief Commissioner of Delhi, the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC was made cognizable and non-bailable though the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 categorized this offence as non-cognizable and bailable. This Court, in the case of Narendra Kumar (supra) was of the view that continuance of the notification without reviewing the situation from time to time had the tendency to subvert the law enacted by the Parliament and, therefore, directed that the notification dated 11.1.1933 shall cease to be in operation from 15.1.2004 till the Government took a view of overall situation and decided as to the necessity of its continuation. This Court did not quash the notification and did not invalidate it from the time it was issued. Thus, the notification declaring the offence under Section 506 of IPC to be cognizable continued to be valid till 15.1.2004. 5. The FIR in this case was registered in the year 1971 and even the chargesheet was filed much prior to 15.1.2004. The first chargesheet against the petitioner is dated 16.5.2002 when he was a Proclaimed Offender and the second chargesheet against him is dated 4.3.2003, which was filed after his arrest and grant of bail to him. Thus, the investigation was carried out at a time when the offence und