IMPORTANT POINT
Expression “other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate” in section 195(1)(b)(ii), CrPC cannot exclude the High Court. Direction by High Court for investigation into a specified offence – Cannot be rendered futile by invoking Section 195.

JUDGMENT :

Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.

1. These appeals have been preferred against Order dated 16th October, 2015 of the High Court of judicature at Madras in Criminal Revision Case No.2 of 2009 and M.P. No.1 of 2009. The High Court has quashed the proceedings against the respondent in C.C. No.15 of 2007 pending before the Additional Special Judge for CBI cases, Chennai.

2. Facts stated in the charge sheet filed by the appellant-CBI against the respondent are that a claim petition was filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Cuddalore seeking compensation of Rs.22,00,000/-for death of Mohamed Farooque in a road accident on 11th October, 2002. The MACT partly upheld the claim and awarded Rs.14,97,000/-. On appeal of the National Insurance Company (Insurance Company), the Madras High Court ordered investigation by CBCID into the allegation that the claim was false. After investigation, the CBCID filed charge sheet. The matter was later taken over by CBI under the directions of the Madras High Court which led the CBI to file the impugned charge sheet under Sections 120-B r/w 182, 420, 468, 468 r/w 471 IPC and 13(2) r/w 13(i)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 r/w 511 IPC against A1 to A9. The respondent is A-5. According to the CBI, the Insurance Company was cheated by A-1 by making false claim in connivance with the other accused. Mohamed Farooque sustained injuries by falling on his own from a scooter and not in accident as alleged. Different accused were given different roles in conspiracy. The role given to the respondent, who is an advocate, is of misrepresentation and producing false evidence, knowing the true facts.

3. During pendency of proceedings on the charge sheet, the respondent moved a petition pleading bar under Section 195(1)(a)(i) CrPC by submitting that cognizance in respect of offence under Section 182 IPC could not be taken except “on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate.” Charge sheet by CBI was not such a complaint. The trial court dismissed the petition.

4. On a revision before the High Court, the High Court reversed the order of the trial court. It was held:-

“….Since Section 182, IPC is found in the final report, a complaint in writing from the competent authority is very much essential and no deviation can be taken. Further, in Section 195(1)(a)(iii), it is mentioned that if there is any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, complaint in writing by the competent authority is necessary. In the instant case, in the final report, it has been clearly stated that all accused have contrived themselves and agreed to perform the said act. Further, since the accused have been facing a charge under Section 120-B, IPC, the Court can very well come to a conclusion that each accused is having vicarious liability. Under the said circumstances, the defence taken on the side of the respondent is sans merit. It has already been pointed out that in respect of the offences mentioned in Section 195(1)(a)(i), a complaint in writing is very much essential. Further, as stated supra, in the instant case, Section 120-B is also available. Under the said circumstances also, a written complaint is very much essential as per the provisions of Section 195(1)(a)(i) and (iii) of Cr.P.C. The Court below has given a finding to the effect that the High Court has directed the CBI to conduct investigation and file a final report and the same has been done. It is pertinent to note that the order passed by the High Court is not at all sufficient to flout/bypass the mandatory provision of Section 195, Cr.P.C. Under such circumstances, the contentions put forth on the side of the respondent are not having any substance. It has already been discussed in detail that the reasons given by the Court-below for dismissing the present petition are totally against the existing law and the same can be eschewed.”

5. We have heard learned counsel f