Complaint : Definition & Meaning Under Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

Section 2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 defines “complaint” to mean 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.

A report made by a police officer in a case which discloses, after investigation, the commission of a non-cognizable offence shall be deemed to be a complaint; and the police officer by whom such report is made shall be deemed to be the complainant.

A complaint, as defined in Section 2(d), Cr.P.C., can be made even orally or in writing with a view to taking of action by a Magistrate.

Under Section 2(d), a complaint can be made either orally or in writing by any person. In so far as the complaints under the Cr.P.C. are concerned, criminal action can be set in motion by any person, even by a stranger.

In the strict sense there is no necessity to mention the name of person who has committed the offence in the complaint.

In order to constitute a complaint there should be an allegation made to a Magistrate that some person has committed an offence.

Under the Cr.P.C., a complaint could be made at any time subject to the provisions of Chapter XXXVI : Limitation for taking cognizance of certain offences.

In the case of Mohd. Yousuf Vs. Smt. Afaq Jahan & Anr., 2006 Cr.L.J. 788 (SC), the Apex Court has laid down that there is no particular format for complaint.

A petition containing allegations that the offence has been committed and ending with a prayer that the culprits be suitably dealt with, can be treated as a complaint.

In the case reported as Bhimappa Basappa Bhau Sannavar Vs. Laxman Shivarayappa Samagouda and Ors., AIR 1970 SC 1153 the Apex Court has laid down that to come within the purview of section 2 (d) of Cr.P.C., the complaint is to fulfill following conditions.

(i) An allegation is made orally or in writing,

(ii) This allegation reveals that some person, known or unknown, has committed the offence,

(iii) Such allegation is made to Magistrate,

(iv) The purpose of allegation is that the Magistrate should take action under the law.

Comments

Adverse Possession | Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur, C.A. No. 7764 of 2014 07-08-2019 SC

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA | Arun Mishra , S. Abdul Nazeer & M.R. Shah C.A. No.7764 of 2014 with S.L.P. (C) Nos. 8332 - 8333 of 2014 Radhakrishna Reddy (d) Through Lrs. v. G. Ayyavoo & Ors. August 07, 2019 Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 65 - Adverse Possession - Plea of acquisition of title by adverse possession can be taken by plaintiff under Article 65 of the Limitation Act and there is no bar under the Limitation Act, 1963 to sue on aforesaid basis in case of infringement of any rights of a plaintiff. A person in possession cannot be ousted by another person except by due procedure of law and once 12 years' period of adverse possession is over, even owner's right to eject him is lost and the possessory owner acquires right, title and interest possessed by the outgoing person/owner as the case may be against whom he has prescribed. In our opinion, consequence is that once the right, title or interest is acquired it can be used as a sword by the plaintiff as well...

Presumptions are the Bats of the Law, Flitting in the Twilight, but Disappearing in the Sunshine of Actual Facts [ORDER]

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - failure on the part of the complainant to produce his account statement and absence of entry in accounts maintained by him regarding loan advanced to the accused, does show that there was no material to support the basic facts on which the entire case of the complainant was based. Sufficient material was available on record whereby the defence of the accused became probable. In such a situation, the presumption under the provisions of the Act ceased to operate and the burden fell upon the complainant to prove his case, which he failed to do by placing on record cogent evidence.

Land Acquisition - National Highway - Inadequate Compensation - What is the Remedy [JUDGMENT]

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34 (1) - National Highways Act, 1956 - Section 3G(5) & 3J - What is the remedy of the appellant to redress his grievance regarding inadequate compensation granted for the land acquired - The court cannot correct errors of the arbitrators - It can only quash the award leaving the parties free to begin the arbitration again if it is desired. [Paras 15 – 18]

FIRST LAW

Search This Blog