Back
2019 Supreme(Raj) 1620
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Mr. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.
Madharam Meghwal - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 872 of 2019
Decided On : 06-02-2019
Mr. Rajendra Singh Tanwar, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. N.S. Dhakad, PP, for the Respondent
Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 bars the court from taking cognizance of certain offences, including those under Chapter XI of the Indian Penal Code, except on the complaint of the public servant concerned or some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 195 - QUASHING OF FIR - IMPERSONATION - FABRICATION OF DOCUMENTS - PROCEDURE FOR PROSECUTION - COURT ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION - RATIO DECIDENDI - FINAL DECISION
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner sought quashing of FIR alleging impersonation and fabrication of documents before the court. An accused was produced before the court as another person and remand and bail were obtained. The court noted that the accused was paid to substitute himself as the other person.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the acts of the accused fell within Chapter XI of the Indian Penal Code (False Evidence and Offences Against Public Justice). The court further held that the procedure for prosecution of such offences is prescribed under Sections 195 and 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Issues: Whether the FIR should be quashed in light of the provisions of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 bars the court from taking cognizance of certain offences, including those under Chapter XI of the Indian Penal Code, except on the complaint of the public servant concerned or some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. In this case, the complaint should have been lodged by the court from which remand was obtained or before whom bail was filed and bail bonds were furnished.
Final Decision: The court quashed the FIR and directed the court which had assigned remand duty or passed the order of bail to hold an inquiry within 15 days and institute a complaint in the court of competent jurisdiction for prosecution of the petitioner and other persons involved.
JUDGMENT
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. - Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 seeking quashing of FIR No.18/2019 dated 17.01.2019 registered at Police Station Taleda, Bundi, for offences under Sections 166, 166A, 167, 182, 197, 220, 221, 419, 468, 471 and 120B IPC.
2. In the present case, FIR has been lodged under the directions of Chief Judicial Magistrate Bundi, by Presiding Officer Gram Nayalaya, Taleda.
3. A perusal of the FIR reveal that the Presiding Officer Gram Nayalaya Taleda, stated that on 01.01.2019 he was performing remand duty and in case, arising out of FIR No.48/2018-19 Excise Inspector Madharam Meghwal along with constable Bejnath and constable Sultan produced one Latur Lal son of Funda Lal for offence under Section 19/54 of Excise Act.
4. Presiding Officer Gram Nayalaya, Taleda who was performing the remand duty, noted that in the case diary produced photographs of the accused were not there. Inspector Madharam Meghwal stated before him that on 31.12.2018 at 6.30 pm he had arrested the accused and since his vehicle broke down, therefore, he could not obtain photographs of the accused.
5. After making oral inquiry, the court granted remand. Subsequently, the court granted bail. The court further noted on 05.01.2019 that a news was published in Dainik Bhaskar that Excise Inspector produced one person namely one Satyanarayan as Latur Lal in the court and wrongly the remand was obtained.
6. It is case where Satyanarayan as Latur Lal by way of impersonation was produced before the court and was identified as such before the court and thereafter, remand and bail was obtained. It is alleged by Satyanarayan in another FIR that due to monetary considerations for ulterior reasons accused was substituted. It is a case of impersonation and fabrication of documents before the court.
7. Having heard counsel for the petitioner accused and learned Public Prosecutor, this court is of the view that the Presiding Officer Gram Nayalaya, Taleda, under the orders of Chief Judicial Magistrate was performing the remand duty, therefore, the said court for all intent and purposes, was a Criminal Court under the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure.
8. In the present case, by way of impersonation Satyanarayan was produced before the court as Latur Lal. It has surfaced in another FIR lodged by Satyanarayan that he was paid Rs. 1,000/- to substitute himself as Latur Lal. In fact, earlier Latur Lal was arrested for offence under Section 19/54 of Rajasthan Excise Act. Not only a wrong person was produced in the court and was identified by the officer seeking remand, but a fabricated remand application was presented before the court. Thereafter, the bail application was also filed on behalf of Latur Lal whereas bail was obtained for Satyanarayan who was made to impersonate as Latur Lal. Bail bonds in the court premises were fabricated and were furnished before the court, therefore, the act of the persons who fabricated the record falls within Chapter XI of IPC (False Evidence and Offences Against Public Justice).
9. As to how the offences under Chapter XI of IPC are to be dealt with, the procedure has been prescribed under sections 195 and 340 Cr.P.C., 1973
10. In view of bar under Section 195 Cr.P.C., 1973 the complaint only could be lodged by the court from which remand was obtained or before whom bail was filed and bail bonds were furnished. It will be apposite here to reproduce Section 195 Cr.P.C., 1973:195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority or 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 inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or
(ii) of any abetment of, attempt to commit, such offence, or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, such offence, Except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other publ
