Here is your short essay on the Complaint

While a litigant approaches an advocate for his civil suit, likewise in cases of criminal grievance the victim(s) has to approach the concerned police station, who may refuse to take up the matter for they have no powers to investigate or may accept the complaint and do not investigate. Then the aggrieved victim has to approach an Advocate.

The police play a pivotal role in criminal offences. It is necessary to acquaint with certain definitions as defined in Cr.P.C. like “complaint”, “inquiry”, “investigation”, “officer-in-charge of a police station”, “police report”, and “cognizable offence” in order to understand the role of police in criminal investigations and cases.

“Complaint” defined under Section 2(d) and “Police report” defined under Section 2(r) are not to be interlinked. A police report means a report forwarded by a police officer to a Magistrate under Section 173(2), Cr.P.C. which report a police officer submit to a Magistrate on completion of his investigation.

Young advocates should not confuse the complaint and the First Information Report (FIR), or the complaint lodged by a party before a magistrate. It was held by courts (AIR 1963 M P 125 and AIR 1962 Raj 1) that there is a distinction between a police report and a report of a police officer, in as much as a police report MAY mean a report made by a police after investigation under Chapter XII, Cr.P.C., but a report of a police officer means a report after such investigation.

On the other hand, a Complaint is one – (1) made to a Magistrate, (2) with a view to taking action by the Magistrate, and (3) under the Cr.P.C. [(1963) P.L.D. (W.P.) Pesh. 21].

Thus, Section 2(d), Cr.P.C. refers to the complaint made to a Magistrate (1960 Ker.L.T. 1186). Any Magistrate may take cognizance of any offence (a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence or (b) upon a report in writing of such facts made by any police officer. A Criminal Court can take cognizance of even non-cognizable offences upon a police report.

The importance of Complaint is that the complaint can be made against a specified person(s) or against unknown person(s) (AIR 1943 All. 6).

The essence of a complaint is the statement of facts to constitute an offence. It is sufficient if the complainant states the facts in his own language, and it is for the Magistrate to apply the law to these facts. In Kaniya Ram vs. Chanan Mai, (AIR 1940 Lah. 208) it was held that where a complaint also contains a prayer that the case should be investigated by a superior police officer on the ground that the local police were hostile to him and under the influence of the principal accused such an averment constitutes a complaint within the meaning of Section 2(d), Cr.P.C.

It is held (AIR 1968 Raj. 297) that an allegation, or accusation or a charge in order to prosecute another person is a complaint.

“Inquiry” by Section 2(g) of the Code to mean every inquiry other than a trial conducted under the Code by a Magistrate or a Court. Curiously, trial has not been defined in the Code.

The definition of inquiry is an excluding definition. The Old Code declared that a trial commences when the accused has been called to plead a charge. In summons cases where no charge is formally drawn, trial was said to commence, when the accused was brought before the Magistrate.

The distinction between inquiry and trial assumes importance since a person who is convicted or acquitted after trial cannot be tried for the same offence again. It is pointed out [AIR 1953 Madhya Bharat 1] that the term “trial” as used in the Code presupposes the commission of an offence, but an “inquiry” may cover probing into matters other than offences.

Once a Magistrate takes congnizance of an offence upon a police report, the inquiry held for example by the Magistrate in preliminary record cases [PRCs, i.e., the sessions cases] is only an inquiry within Sec. 2(g) of the Code. In Hema Singh vs. Emperor [AIR 1929 Pat 644,] the distinction between a trial and inquiry was brought out by pointing out that a trial is a judicial proceeding which ends in conviction or acquittal and that all other proceedings are mere inquiries.

“Investigation” [Sec. 2 (h) Cr.P.C.] is every proceeding for collection of evidence conducted by a police officer or any person authorised by the Magistrate other than the Magistrate.

The Supreme Court pointed out [AIR 1959 SC 707] that investigation consists of the following steps namely (i) proceeding to the spot (ii) ascertainment of the facts and circumstances of the case (iii) discovery and the arrest of the suspected persons (iv) collection of evidence relating to the commission of the offence including the examination of persons under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. and the search of the places for collection of evidence and (v) formation of the opinion as to whether the accused can be produced before the Magistrate for trial. Investigation generally starts on information relating to the commission of an offence given to an officer in charge of a police station under Section 154 Cr.P.C.

Sec. 2(o) Cr.P.C. defines the officer in charge of a police station. The officer in charge of a police station for the purpose of Sec. 2(o) of Cr.P.C. includes the officer next in rank during the absence of the actual officer in charge.

Essentially, the Police Act, 1861, which was enacted by the British holds sway even now, albeit The Police Act, 1888 and The Police Act, 1949 empowered the Government to create police force in the Union Territories.

Under the Police Act, 1861, every State Government established its own police force. The force consists of such number of officers and men and is constituted and in a manner as the State Government may decide from time to time. Under the Police Act, 1861, the overall administration of the police in the entire State is vested in the Inspector General of Police.

However, almost all states have brought state amendments creating the post of Director General of Police. The State of Andhra Pradesh is presently under the control of the Director General of Police as the Head of the Police force.

he administration of police in every district vests in the District Superintendent of Police under the general control and direction of the District Magistrate (District Collector in the State of Andhra Pradesh).

The Code confers special powers such as power to make arrest, search, seizure, etc., on the members of the police force who are enrolled as police officers. Wider powers have been given to police officers who are in charge of police stations.

Such station-house officers are also required to discharge onerous duties in relation to detection, investigation and prevention of offences. Section 36 of the Code however confers all the powers of a Station House Officer (SHO, for brief) on the officer’s superior to the SHOs.

It has been already pointed out that while investigation is the action taken by police, inquiry and trial are the prerogatives of the Court. It is further pointed out that an aggrieved party goes to police and not to an advocate or Court for redressal.

When a person suffers from injuries whether in an accident or owing to the deliberate action of another person, the injured prefers to go to doctor immediately for treatment, rather than approaching police station. Equally natural is the fact that whenever a person suffers any injury to the body, mind or property, the victim first approaches police and not any other agency.

However, there is classification of offences under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, enumerated in the First Schedule, which determines the action to be taken by police whenever a report is given to police about the commission of an offence either by the victim or by any other person. It therefore is necessary to take note of the classification of offences envisaged by the Code.

Offences are classified as COGNIZABLE offences and NON-COGNIZABLE offences. A cognizable offence is an offence for which a police officer may, in accordance with the First Schedule of the Code or under any other law, arrest the culprit without warrant.

A non-cognizable offence is one for the commission of which a police officer cannot arrest the culprit without warrant. Curiously, the Code did not give any test to determine whether a particular offence belongs to one category or the other. Whether an offence is a cognizable offence or not depends upon the classification of the offence in the First Schedule of the Code, though broadly speaking, the gravity of the offence decides whether an offence is a cognizable offence or a non-cognizable offence.

In case of a cognizable offence a police officer can arrest the accused person without any warrant issued by a magistrate and can investigate into such case without any order or directions from any magistrate. Further, the police officer is under a legal duty to exercise the above-said powers in respect of a cognizable offence.

In the case of a cognizable offence it appears to be the responsibility of the State to bring the offender to justice. In non-cognizable offences, generally, a police officer cannot arrest without a warrant, and further such police officer has neither the duty nor the power to investigate into such offence without the authority given by a Judicial Magistrate. However, it is always open for a Judicial Magistrate to direct police to investigate into a non-cognizable offence if he considers it desirable that the said offence needs investigation; in such a case it is the duty of the police officer to investigate even if the offence is a non-cognizable offences.

Offences are classified under the code as BAILABLE and NON-BAILABLE offences. Once again, it is the First Schedule which determines what offences are bailable and what offences are non-bailable. However, just like cognizable and non-cognizable offences, bailable offences are less serious offences, and non- bailable offences are more serious offences.