1996 Supreme(P&H) 1109
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
V.S.Aggarwal, J.
Rishi Pal
Versus
State Of Haryana
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 10587 of 1991,
Decided On : JULY 30, 1996
Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC restricts the court's ability to take cognizance of offenses related to documents produced or given in evidence in court proceedings, but it does not bar the initiation of those offenses.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 195(1)(B)(II) - RESTRICTION ON TAKING COGNIZANCE OF OFFENCES RELATED TO DOCUMENTS IN COURT PROCEEDINGS - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner sought to quash an FIR alleging forgery and fabrication of a decree, claiming that the court could not take cognizance of the offenses under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Finding of the Court:
The court held that Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC restricts the court from taking cognizance of offenses related to documents produced or given in evidence in court proceedings, but it does not bar the initiation of such offenses.
Issues: Whether the court could take cognizance of offenses related to documents produced or given in evidence in court proceedings, despite the restriction under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC as imposing a bar on the court's ability to take cognizance of certain offenses, but not on the initiation of those offenses. The court also clarified that cognizance is a mental and judicial act, involving the magistrate's application of mind to the alleged commission of an offense to decide whether to initiate judicial proceedings.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner had no cause of action as the magistrate had not yet taken cognizance of the offenses.
V.S.AGGARWAL, J.
1. Smt. Chandrawli, complainant made a report asserting that she is not owner of 67 kanals and 9 marlas of land in village Kalayat, District Kaithal. She is in possession of the same. Petitioner Rishi Pal along with Laxman Dass and Sushil Kumar Goyal got a forged and false decree passed from the Court of Subordinate Judge First Class, Kaithal. The Court was deceived. The complainant had never appeared in theCourt and was falsely identified. On 8-3-1991, petitioner in connivance with the Patwari got effected the mutation on basis of the said decree. The petitioner took a tractor on the said land for taking forcible possession. The complainant asserts that she had never appeared in the Court of Subordinate Judge at Kaithal nor thumb marked any statement. In these circumstances, it was claimed that offence punishable under Sections 418/420/468/471/120-B of Indian Penal Code have been committed by the petitioner and others. On basis of the above said complaint, First Information Report has been registered at Police Station Kalayet, District Kaithal.
2. The petitioner seeks the quashing of the First Information Report alleging that a valid decree has been passed in his favour. If the facts alleged by respondent No. 2 complainant are taken as correct, they disclose an offence to have been committed in the proceedings before the Subordinate Judge at Kaithal. Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure restricts the Court from taking cognizance pertaining to such an offence alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in proceeding before the Court. The Court cannot take cognizance of the same and on this fact, it was prayed that First Information Report be quashed.
3. In the reply filed by the State, the facts have been stated again in seriatim about the alleged offences purported to have been committed by the petitioner and others. It was denied that provisions of Section 195(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure are attracted in the facts of the case. Plea was raised that there is no ground to quash the First Information Report.
4. As is apparent from the recitation of the facts alleged by the petitioner, the sole argument advanced and pressed was that keeping in view the provisions of Sub-Section (1) to Section 195, the Court cannot take cognizance pertaining to the offences committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in proceeding in any Court and consequently the proceedings as such should be quashed. Sub-Section (1) to Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as under:-
"195. (1) No Court shall taken cognizance-(a) (i) of any offence punishable under Sections 172 of 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or,(ii) of any abetment of, or 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 public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate:(b) (i) of any offence punishable under any of the following Sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely, Sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive) 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228 when such offence is alleged to have been committed in or in relation to, any proceedings in any Court, or(ii) of any offence described in Section 463 or punishable under Section 471, Section 475 or Section 476, of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in proceeding in any Court, or(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit or attempt to commit or the abetment of, any offence specified in sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (ii),except on the complaint in writing of that Court or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate.
5. This provision shows that the bar imposed pertaining to certain offences referred to under Sub-Section (1) to Section 195 Code of Crim