Cognizance under Sections 182/211 IPC requires written complaint by public servant or court per Section 195 CrPC; police final report recommending prosecution insufficient, rendering cognizance void ab initio.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023 with the prayer to quash the order dated 08.09.2010 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakur whereby and where under, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakur has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 182/211 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner in connection with O.C.R. Case No. 86 of 2010 arising out of Amrapara P.S. Case No. 64 of 2007, corresponding to G.R. No. 746 of 2007 without following the procedure required under Section 195 of Code of Criminal Procedure; in the absence of any formal complaint on the basis of the Final Report submitted by the police.

3. Further, prayer has also been made to quash the orders dated 10.05.2012, 19.12.2013, 30.06.2014 and 14.08.2014 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Pakur and learned Judicial Magistrate, Pakur in the said case whereby respectively non-bailable warrant of arrest, proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C., attachment order under Section 83 of Cr.P.C. and the order by which the petitioner has been declared as absconder and permanent warrant of arrest has been issued against him.

4. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner in capacity of the Assistant Electrical Engineer, Supply Division, Amrapara in the District of Pakur submitted a written report to the Officer-in-Charge of the Amrapara police station alleging therein that on patrolling he found that unknown thieves have committed theft of electric energy wires by cutting and stealing the supply wire of all the three phases of the wire from 28 spans and one phase wire of one span and 32 pin insulators.

5. On the basis of the written report submitted by the petitioner, Amrapara P.S. Case No. 64 of 2007 was registered and police took up investigation of the case. After completion of investigation, police found that the claim of the theft of wires 15-20 days prior to the date of lodging of the FIR was not true rather the electric energy wire has been kept together and finding that the allegation made by the petitioner is not true, in the Final Form which was submitted mentioning the allegation to be not true, representation was made for initiating the proceeding under Section 182/211 of the Indian Penal Code. Basing upon the same, without any separate complaint, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakur vide order dated 08.09.2010 took cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 182/211 of the Indian Penal Code.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Saloni Arora vs. State of NCT of Delhi reported in [2017 (1) East Cr C 391 (SC)] : 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 36 and in the facts of that case when the State Prosecuting Agency sought to prosecute the appellant before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India for commission of the offence punishable under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code and the trial court dismissed the application of the appellant on the ground that the procedure as contemplated under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not followed by the prosecution hence, the appellant cannot be prosecuted for such offence and on the same, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India relied upon its own judgment in the case of Daulat Ram vs. State of Punjab reported in