Point of Law:
Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. comes into operation at the stage when the Court intends to take cognizance of an offence under Section 190(1) of the Cr.P.C; and it has nothing to do with the statutory power of the police to investigate into an FIR, which discloses a cognizable offence, in accordance with Chapter-XII of the Cr.P.C. even if the offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in the Court. It is further held that the statutory power of the police to investigate under the Code is not in any way controlled or circumscribed by 195 of the Cr.P.C. If the charge-sheet is filed on the completion of the investigation into such an offence the Court would not be competent to take cognizance thereof in view of the embargo of Section 195(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C., however, nothing therein deters the Court from filing a complaint for the offence on the basis of the FIR and the materials collected during investigation, provided it forms the requisite opinion and follows the procedure laid down in Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. Thus, no illegality can be found in the order passed by the 08.09.2016 passed by the Additional sessions judge, Surendranagar below Exh. 1 issuing directions to file a police complaint before the concerned police station having jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT

A.S. Supehia, J.

1. The present application has been filed seeking quashing of the FIR registered at City 'A' Division Police Station, District Surendranagar, being C.R. No. I-89 of 2016 for the offence punishable under Sections 193, 197, 198 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the IPC').

2. Brief facts of the case leading to filing of the present application are as under:

2.1. It is alleged that the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR are to the effect that in the proceedings before the court of Principal District & Sessions Judge, Surendranagar, relating to temporary bail of the applicant No. 2, a certificate was produced by the applicant No. 1 containing incorrect details. It is also alleged that the certificate was produced, wherein an inquiry was made by the court of Principal District & Sessions Judge, Surendranagar, and it was found that the recitals in the certificate are not genuine. Though, the father of the applicants had passed away 15 years back, a certificate issued by the Sarpanch indicated that the father has recently passed away and, therefore, false facts were projected before the court of Principal District & Sessions Judge, Surendranagar and, therefore, upon directions of the court, the impugned FIR came to be filed.

3. At the outset, learned advocate Mr. Virat Popat appearing for the applicants has submitted that no FIR could have been filed as the offence alleged are non-cognizable. He has submitted that as per the mandate of Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short 'the Cr.P.C.), the registration of FIR is permissible only in case of commission of cognizable offence. He has invited the attention of this Court to the provision of Sections 2(c) and 2(r) of the Cr.P.C.

3.1 Learned advocate Mr. Popat for the applicants has submitted that producing a false certificate before the court concerned would not attract any cognizable offence and that for the offence under Chapter XI of the IPC, a complaint has to be filed by the concerned court or Registrar and the filing of an FIR is not maintainable. He has also submitted that filing of the impugned FIR is clearly non-application of mind since the FIR cannot be registered even if the allegations contained therein about producing the false certificate are taken at their face value. He has submitted that the applicants' case is that the registration of FIR itself is bad as the present case relates to offences which are non-cognizable for which he has placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajanlal & Ors., AIR 1992 SC 604, in the case of Dr. Subramanian Swamy Vs. Director, CBI & Anr ., (2014) 8 SCC 682, in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Girish Radhakishan Varde, (2014) 3 SCC 659 and in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1. He has submitted that the aforesaid judgments would establish that before the registration of FIR, a preliminary inquiry is to be undertaken to find out whether offence is cognizable or not and it is not permissible to investigate a non-cognizable offence to find out whether any cognizable offence is disclosed or not.

3.2 Learned advocate Mr. Popat for the applicants has submitted that the assertions made in the FIR are false since no forgery is established as the signatures in the forged letter are genuine and no one has signed on someone else name and hence, forgery is not established. He has further submitted that the action of the investigating agency in claiming the document to be forged prima facie does not inspire confidence for the reason that the author of the document herself has been made accused in the present case and it is alleged that she gave a false certificate by colluding with the accused and if this be the case, then there is no question of forgery and if there is forgery then the Sarpanch would not be an accused. He has further submitted that the provisions of Section 195(b)(ii) of the Cr.P.C.