SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(P&H) 1107

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
V.S.Aggarwal, J.
Rishi Pal
Versus
State Of Haryana
Criminal Misc. No. 10587 of 1991,
Criminal Misc. No. 4456 of 1995,
Decided On : JULY 30, 1996

The bar imposed under Section 195(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is on the court, not on initiating the offense.

Headnote:

{'KEYWORD': 'Cognizance of Offence', 'SUBJECT': 'Quashing of FIR', 'ACT SECTION LIST': 'Section 195(1)(b)(iii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure', 'SUMMARY': 'The court held that the bar imposed under Section 195(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is on the court, not on initiating the offense. Therefore, the question of quashing the FIR does not arise.'}

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought to quash an FIR alleging forgery and fabrication of a decree, claiming that the court could not take cognizance of the offense under Section 195(1)(b)(iii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner had not yet approached the concerned court, and therefore, no cognizance had been taken by the court. The court also held that the bar imposed under Section 195(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is on the court, not on initiating the offense.

Issues: Whether the court could take cognizance of the offense under Section 195(1)(b)(iii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the bar imposed under Section 195(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is on the court, not on initiating the offense. Therefore, the question of quashing the FIR does not arise.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed as the court had not yet taken cognizance of the offense.

Judgment

V.S.Aggarwal, J.

1. Smt. Chandrawali-complainant made a report asserting that she is the owner of 67 kanals and 9 marlas of land in village Kalayat, District Kaithal. She is in possession of the same. Petitioner Rishi Pal alongwith 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 the Court 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 offences punishable under Sections 418/420/468/471/120-B of Indian Penal Code have been committed by the petitioner and others. On the basis of the above said complaint, First Information Report has been registered at Police Station, Kalayat, 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)(iii) 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 to 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 1











Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top