Criminal Comlaint

Sir, Complaint is lodged under s. 200 of CrPC. Or else, FIR will be registered under s.154 CrPC , in case of an criminal offence. Alternately you can also file a complaint before the magistrate who may order investigation u/S.156[3] CrPC in which case the complaint is the FIR[according to Supreme Court judgment] however the police will nonetheless take down a formal FIR from the complainant.

criminal complaint is the one which a person gives directly to the police authority under the name FIR and the same is forwarded to the court and trial will be conducted  after investigation

complaint under 156(3) is the one in which the complainant gives a complaint directly to the court directing the police to investigate the case

I would like to bring to the notice a recent Full Bench Judgment of Hon'ble  Bombay High Court in the case of Panchabhai Popotbhai Butani & ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors. reported in 2010 (2) LJSOFT 39, where it has been held that

Question No.- (i)

Whether in absence of a complaint to the police, a complaint can be made directly before a Magistrate ?

Answer

Normally a person should invoke the provisions of Section 154 of the Code before he takes recourse to the power of the Magistrate competent to take cognizance under Section 190 of the Code, under Section 156(3). Atleast an intimation to the police of commission of a cognizable offence under Section 154(1) would be a condition precedent for invocation of powers of the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code. We would hasten to add here that this dictum of law is not free from exception. There can be cases where non-compliance to the provisions of Section 154(3) would not divest the Magistrate of his jurisdiction in terms of Section 156(3). There could be cases where the police fail to act instantly and the facts of the case show that there is possibility of the evidence of commission of the offence being destroyed and/or tampered with or an applicant could approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code directly by way of an exception as the Legislature has vested wide discretion in the Magistrate.

Question No.(ii)

Whether without filing a complaint within the meaning of Section 2(d) and praying only for an action under Section 156(3), a complaint before a Magistrate was maintainable?

Answer

A Petition under Section 156(3) cannot be strictly construed as a complaint in terms of Section 2(d) of the Code and absence of a specific or improperly worded prayer or lack of complete and definite details would not prove fatal to a petition under Section 156(3), in so far as it states facts constituting ingredients of a cognizable offence. Such petition would be maintainable before the Magistrate.

Complaint in Criminal Procedure Code

pl tell me that  if tril court given decisisson in sec 307 accused  gone to jail and accused appeai  in h c  the appil accepect and accused Bail he is on the bail  if they want to compromise with the party is it possibal

the case wear pending  in due cours  

sir  summary is complite in the lower court  judge take decison  Aginest the accused accused gone to jail he appeal in the h.c the appeal accepect and H.C geven the Bail  then the case was painding in the h.c  Party want compromise is it possible? sir tell me

its mis conception that appeal accepted. its not accepted. the appeal was admitted and accused setence suspended under section 389 crpc. section 307 IPC is non compoundable offence. compromise  is not possible.

Though the offence u/s 307 of I.P.C. is not compoundable u/s 320 of Cr.P.C., yet such subsequent development can be looked into while considering appropriate sentence. In the case of Sarjerao Shamrao Dhas & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra 2003 (2) LJSOFT 50 it is held that " Appellants cannot be acquitted on the basis of said compromise but considering that differences are  patched up and they have been happily living together sentence altered to that already undergone."

In the case of Suresh s/o Ishwar Phalke & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. 2004 (7) LJSOFT 32 it is held that "Amicable settlement arrived at between the parties in case of non-compoundable offences, Court cannot give legal recognition to the compromise arrived at between the parties. However lenient view can be taken while considering the question of sentence and the sentence was reduced to the period already undergone."

In the recent case of Chandrakant s/o Gujaba Raut & anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra 2008 (4) LJSOFT 54 where the offence was u/s 307 of IPC and parties had settled the dispute outside the Court and after compromise the spouses have reunited. It is held that "Though offence u/s 307 of IPC is not compoundable yet such subsequent development can be considered as one of the mitigating circumstance to reduce the sentence. Broken marriage is being rejoined as a result of settlement between the spouses. Compounding of the offence would cement their matrimonial relationship, if the sentence is reduced. Substantive sentence reduced to one already undergone by the appellants."