Point of Law: Section 195 has been enacted mainly to regulate and control prosecutions in respect of offences against administration of justice and contempt of lawful authority.

JUDGMENT :

AJAY MOHAN GOEL, J.

1. By way of this petition, preferred under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter to be referred as ‘Cr.P.C.’) the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this petition may kindly be allowed and challan filed by the prosecution in case FIR No. 24/2017 dated 26.01.2017 registered at Police Station Sadar Solan, District Solan recommending prosecution of the petitioners under Sections 201, 120-B, 182 of the Indian Penal Code and its consequential proceedings pending in the Court of learned CJM Solan, vide case No. 115/2019 may kindly be quashed in the interest of justice and fair play.”

2. The case of the petitioners is that they are father and son and are engaged in the business of finance. Petitioner No. 1 is Director in Shree Anand Finance and Investment Private Ltd. Solan and petitioner No. 2 is Secretary of Himachal Cooperative Non Agriculture Thrift and Credit Society Limited, Solan. Both the companies are stated to be finance companies and are engaging in the business of advancing loans etc. to general public. FIR No. 24 of 2017, dated 26.01.2017 was registered at the instance of petitioner No. 1, under Sections 307, 365, 384 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act, inter-alia, on the fact that on 25.01.2017, during evening hours when the petitioners were returning back to their home in their car from their work place, there persons with muffled faces caught hold of petitioner No. 1 and pointed a pistol at his chest. On this, petitioner No. 2 asked them to leave his father, who were insisting upon petitioner No. 1 to hand them over the loan documents of one Raj Kumar Mittal. To cut the issue short, in terms of the contents of the FIR, two of the three persons took petitioner No. 1 to his office and third one stayed with petitioner No. 2. Petitioner No. 1 was assaulted by these two persons in his office and they also took away the computer, pen drives and debit voucher etc. Thereafter, these three persons took petitioners No. 1 and 2 in their car towards Kumarhatti where they were made to sign about sixty-seventy blank papers. One of the three persons also fired at petitioner No. 1, but petitioner No. 2 saved his father. These persons, thereafter, left the petitioners in their car and fled away when the petitioners begged for their lives and promised them to pay handsome ransom. The investigation which was carried out in the FIR revealed that the petitioner had concocted a story and staged fake kidnapping etc. and nothing as alleged by them in fact had happened. In terms of the investigation, the incident was cooked up incident by the petitioners themselves and accordingly, in the final report which was prepared by the Investigating Agency, it was mentioned that the petitioners and proforma respondents had committed offences punishable under Sections 182, 201 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25, 27, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in the present case on the basis of recommendations of the Investigating Agency in the final report, registration of the case against the petitioners under Sections 182, 201 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and its consequential proceedings pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan, in terms of case No. 115 of 2019, be quashed and set aside. The quashing thereof has been prayed on the ground that in terms of the provisions of Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 of the Indian Penal Code, except on the complaint in writing of that Court or by such officer of the Court as that Court may authorise in writing in this behalf, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate and said procedure has not been followed while prosecuting the petitioners. In the present case, the proceedings which stand initiated agains