Back
1998 Supreme(Raj) 107
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : V.G. Palshikar
Babu Lal - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Revision Petition No. 535 of 1996
Decided On : 02/03/1998
M.L. Shreernalee, for the Appellant
D.S. Rathore, Public Prosecutor for the Respondents
A magistrate cannot take cognizance of an offense alleged to have been committed in relation to a proceeding in court without a complaint from the presiding officer of the court.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 195 - SECTION 2(D) - SECTION 173 - SECTION 466 - SECTION 471 - SECTION 209 - SECTION 463 - SECTION 475 - SECTION 476 - SECTION 197 - FORGERY - FABRICATION OF DOCUMENTS - JURISDICTION - COMPLAINT - POLICE REPORT - SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES - LEGAL PRINCIPLES - JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION - PUBLIC SERVANTS - CONTEMPT OF COURT - OFFENCES AGAINST PUBLIC JUSTICE - DOCUMENTS GIVEN IN EVIDENCE - CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY - ABETMENT - ATTEMPT - OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER INDIAN PENAL CODE - OFFENCES COMMITTED IN PROCEEDINGS IN COURT - OFFENCES RELATING TO DOCUMENTS GIVEN IN EVIDENCE - OFFENCES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC SERVANTS IN DISCHARGE OF OFFICIAL DUTIES - JURISDICTION OF COURTS - POWERS OF COURTS - PROCEDURE FOR TAKING COGNIZANCE OF OFFENCES - COMPLAINT BY PUBLIC SERVANT OR SUBORDINATE - COMPLAINT BY COURT OR SUBORDINATE COURT - POLICE REPORTS - DEFINITION OF COMPLAINT - EXPLANATION TO DEFINITION OF COMPLAINT - POLICE OFFICER AS COMPLAINANT - NECESSITY OF SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION OF PUBLIC SERVANTS - QUASHING OF PROCEEDINGS - JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION - PUBLIC SERVANTS - CONTEMPT OF COURT - OFFENCES AGAINST PUBLIC JUSTICE - DOCUMENTS GIVEN IN EVIDENCE - CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY - ABETMENT - ATTEMPT - OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER INDIAN PENAL CODE - OFFENCES COMMITTED IN PROCEEDINGS IN COURT - OFFENCES RELATING TO DOCUMENTS GIVEN IN EVIDENCE - OFFENCES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC SERVANTS IN DISCHARGE OF OFFICIAL DUTIES - JURISDICTION OF COURTS - POWERS OF COURTS - PROCEDURE FOR TAKING COGNIZANCE OF OFFENCES - COMPLAINT BY PUBLIC SERVANT OR SUBORDINATE - COMPLAINT BY COURT OR SUBORDINATE COURT - POLICE REPORTS - DEFINITION OF COMPLAINT - EXPLANATION TO DEFINITION OF COMPLAINT - POLICE OFFICER AS COMPLAINANT - NECESSITY OF SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION OF PUBLIC SERVANTS - QUASHING OF PROCEEDINGS
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were charged with forgery, fabrication of documents, and other offenses related to a lease deed and a register entry produced in a civil case. The petitioners challenged the jurisdiction of the magistrate to take cognizance of the offenses, arguing that a complaint from the presiding officer of the civil court was required under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the offenses without a complaint from the presiding officer of the civil court. The court found that the offenses were committed in relation to a proceeding in court and that Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the CrPC was applicable. The court also held that the police report filed under Section 173 of the CrPC could not be construed as a complaint under Section 195(1) of the CrPC.
Issues: 1. Whether the magistrate had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offenses without a complaint from the presiding officer of the civil court. 2. Whether the police report filed under Section 173 of the CrPC could be construed as a complaint under Section 195(1) of the CrPC.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the CrPC requires a complaint from the presiding officer of the court in cases where an offense is alleged to have been committed in relation to a proceeding in court. 2. A police report filed under Section 173 of the CrPC cannot be construed as a complaint under Section 195(1) of the CrPC.
Final Decision: The court quashed the magistrate's order taking cognizance of the offenses and framing charges against the petitioners.
V.G. Palshikar, J.-By this petition, the petitioners have assailed the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jaisalmer in Criminal Case No. 115/1995 framing charge against the accused revision petitioners under Sections 420, 466, 471, 209 and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and proceeded to try the same. This order is challenged with order dated 23-9-1996 whereby the learned Judge held that the question of sentences under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in relation to accused No. 1 and 3 does not arise as the offence ultimately committed by them was not so committed in discharge of their duties.
2. Both the orders are assailed on the ground that they are unsustainable in law. The first and basic attack is that the proceedings are initiated on a police report which is impermissible in law. No cognizance of the offence with which the petitioners are charged can be taken, except on a complaint to that effect by the Court concerned and, hence in view of the embargo contained in Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the prosecution is liable to be quashed. The second contention is that it is the allegation of the prosecution that the accused Nos. 1 and 3 were Sarpanch and Gram Sewak or Secretary of the Gram Panchayat at the time when the offence was committed and they have fabricated or abetted the fabricating of the lease deed in favour of accused No. 2 Bhagwana Ram and this offence was committed by them with a view to use that lease deed in a proceeding, namely, a suit instituted at the behest of Bhagwana Ram. It is, therefore, the contention of the accused that the sentences, as contemplated by Section 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is necessary in the instant case.
3. Taking up the first contention regarding lack of jurisdiction to take cognizance in the instant case, it should be noticed that admittedly the incident has occurred in Civil Miscellaneous Case No. 15/1992 pending on the file of Civil Judge Sr. Division, Jaisalmer, wherein accused No. 2 Bhagwana Ram sought an injunction against one Govind Ram and in which lease deed in favour of the accused Bhagwana Ram was produced. Also produced was a Register showing the entry of a lease deed by the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat. The learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Jaisalmer suspected that the entry No. 21 at page No. 8 is deliberately cancelled and, therefore, amounts to forgery committed with intention to defraud the litigant in a litigation. He, therefore, directed the Station House Officer, Police Station Khuhadi to investigate the matter. The Station House Officer, after investigation, filed a challan and a Report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jaisalmer, who, after rejecting the application for quashing the prosecution for want of complaint under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, proceeded to frame charges as aforesaid by the impugned order. It is this, order, which is impugned in this petition on the ground that the learned Judge has grossly misconducted the provisions of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Judge should have been that in the present case, the complaint is not filed by the Presiding Officer of the Court, namely, the Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Jaisalmer and, therefore, no cognizance of the matter could be taken by the learned Magistrate. For adjudication of this question of law, it would be necessary to know in detail the provisions of law, reliance on which is placed for the contention that the prosecution is liable to be quashed for lack of jurisdiction.
.4. Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as under :195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence. - (1) No Court shall take cognizance -
.(a) (i) of any offence punishable under ‘Sections 172 to 188 (both inclusi
