Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : V.BHASKARA RAO
Kodati Ramana alias Venkatarama Rao - Appellant
Versus
Station House Officer Penpahad Police Station, penpahad Mandal, Nalgonda District - Respondent
Decided On : 10-04-96
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - SECTION 195 - FORGERY - JURISDICTION - COURT ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION - The court held that the private complaint filed by the 3rd respondent before the 2nd respondent is not maintainable unless the same is filed as per the procedure laid down under Section 195 Cr. P. C. and the 2nd respondent has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of offences under Sections 192, 193 and 465 to 467 and consequently, he has no jurisdiction to refer the case under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. to the police for investigation.
Fact of the Case:
The 3rd respondent filed a private complaint before the 2nd respondent against the petitioners and another alleging that the petitioners forged the agreement of sale dated 18-5-1982, which was filed in the court in O. S. No. 885 of 1987, and that the 3rd respondent has not at all executed the same in favour of the 1st petitioner. Thereupon, the 2nd respondent referred the complaint under section 156 (3) Crp. C. to the 1st respondent for investigation.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the 2nd respondent has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of offences under Sections 192,193 and 465 to 467 and consequently, he has no jurisdiction to refer the case under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. to the police for investigation. The private complaint filed by the 3rd respondent on the file of the 2nd respondent, which was referred to the Istrespondent for investigation is, therefore, held not maintainable in respect of offences under Sections 192,193 and 465 to 467 IPC.
Issues: 1. Whether the private complaint filed by the 3rd respondent before the 2nd respondent is not maintainable unless the same is filed as per the procedure laid down under Section 195 Cr. P. C?. 2. Whether this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution can quash the investigation in a criminal case ordered by the Criminal Court in exercise of its powers conferred under Section 156 (3) Crp. C. ?
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of Section 195 Cr. P. C. and held that no Court shall take cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 193 to 196,199, 200, 205 to 211 and 228 IPC when such offences are alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any court, except on the complaint in writing of that Court or some other Court to which that Court is subordinate.
Final Decision: The writ petition is allowed in part, the complaint in Crime No. 25 of 1990 of penpahad Police Station, Nalgonda District, to the extent of offences under Sections 192, 193 and 465 to 467 I. P. C. , alone is quashed as not maintainable, the direction of the 2nd respondent referring the said complaint to the police under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. for investigation into the above said offence is declared as illegal. However, the complaint to the extent of offences under sections 423 and 468 IPC is declared valid and the investigation as ordered by the 2nd respondent in regard to these offences may be proceeded with by the 1st respondent.
( 1 ) THE writ petition is filed seeking a writ or direction in the nature of a mandamus directing the complaint filed by the 3rd respondent on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Suryapet, the 2nd respondent and action of the 2nd respondent referring the complaint to the Station House Officer, Penpahad Police Station, the 1st respondent, under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for investigation, which was registered as Crime No. 25 of 1990, as illegal and consequently quash the same.
( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case as stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are that the 3rd respondent is the senior paternal uncle s wife of the 1st petitioner. The 1st petitioner purchased Ac. 49-21 guntas of land in various survey numbers situate in bhaktallapur village, Nalgonda District under an agreement of sale dated 18-5-1982 from the 3rd respondent for a consideration of Rs. 40. 000/ -. After paying the entire consideration, he was put in possession of the land on the same day. Since the date of purchase, the 1st petitioner is paying the land revenue and his name is entered in the revenue records as possessor. In the year 1987, some third parties started interfering with the possession of the 1st petitioner. Then he filed O. S. No. 885 of 1987 on the file of the district Munsif Court, Suryapet against third parties for a permanent injunction. Pending the said suit, he also filed I. A. No. 175 of 1987 and obtained interim order of injunction, which was later made absolute. While so, the 3rd respondent filed a private complaint before the 2nd respondent aginast the petitioners and another alleging that the petitioners forged the agreement of sale dated 18-5-1982, which was filed in the court in O. S. No. 885 of 1987, and that the 3rd respondent has not at all executed the same in favour of the 1st petitioner. Thereupon, the 2nd respondent referred the complaint under section 156 (3) Crp. C. to the 1st respondent for investigation. The 1st respondent registered the same as Crime No. 25 Of 1990 under Sections 192,193,423,465,466, 467 and 468 read with 109 of the Indian Penal Code, arrested the 1st petitioner and later on released him on bail.
( 3 ) IT is the case of the petitioners that the 2nd respondent has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of offences alleged unless a complaint is filed by the Court or anybody on behalf of the Court as laid down under Section 195 Crp. C. , that in this case since the complaint was filed by the 3rd respondent-not by Court or any person on behalf of the court-the 2nd respondent has no jurisdiction to refer the matter under Section 156 (3) crp. C. to the police for investigation and that, therefore, the writ petition has to be allowed as prayed for.
( 4 ) THE 3rd respondent filed a counter-affidavit averring that there is no bar for taking cognizance of offences by the Criminal Court and the Criminal Court has rightly referred the matter under Section 156 Crp. C. to the 1 st respondent for investigation. The bar laid down under Section 195 Crp. C. applies only when a party to the proceedings files a complaint, but not by the third parties. The writ petition was filed with an intention to drag on the proceedings in the criminal case. There are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
( 5 ) THE points that arise for consideration are: 1. Whether the private complaint filed by the 3rd respondent before the 2nd respondent is not maintainable unless the same is filed as per the procedure laid down under Section 195 Cr. P. C?. 2. Whether this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution can quash the investigation in a criminal case ordered by the Criminal Court in exercise of its powers conferred under Section 156 (3) Crp. C. ?
( 6 ) POINT No. 1: To decide the issue, it is relevant to extract the relevant provisions of Section 195, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:"195 (1 ). No court shall take cognizance-
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
