Point of Law : Court will not permit an investigation to go 'on', or where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice the Court may interfere at the stage of investigation of offence.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Anoop Trivedi learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Vivek Prakash Mishra learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Dileep Kumar learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Priyanka Midha learned counsel for the respondent no. 4/complainant and Ms. Meena learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The petitioner herein is seeking for quashing of the first information report dated 25.6.2021 registered as Case Crime No. 466 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 419, 195, 452, 323, 504, 506, 427 and 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Anoop Shahar, District Bulandshahar on two grounds:

(i) Firstly that the allegations in the first information report do not constitute commission of any offence within the jurisdiction of the Police Station Anoop Shahar, District Bulandshahar. It is contended that as per the assertions in the first information report, an incident dated 15.6.2021 had occurred at about 5:30 PM inside the residence of the complainant located in New Delhi, addressed at Farm No. 2, Silver Oaklane, Satbari, New Delhi. Both the complainant and the accused persons in the said complaint reside in Delhi. The concerned Officer of the Police Station Anoop Shahar, District Bulandshahar had, thus, illegally registered the FIR, the incident being beyond the area of his territorial jurisdiction.

(ii) Secondly, there is no allegation against the petitioner of his involvement in the incident allegedly occurred on 15.6.2021. No offence at all is made out against the petitioner herein. As regards the allegations of conspiracy to lodge the false criminal case namely Case Crime No. 450 of 2021 at the Police Station Anoop Shahar, District Bulandshahar under Sections 307, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C., i.e. in reporting the incident dated 10.6.2021, it is contended that the offence as alleged under Section 195 IPC cannot be made out from any of the averments in the FIR. The contention is that the material collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of the investigation of the said criminal case (report) cannot constitute “evidence” within the meaning of Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The “evidence” as defined under Section 3 of the Evidence Act is the oral and documentary evidences filed before the Court upon which the Court has to form its opinion during the course of the trial.

3. The contention is that the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the Investigating Officer cannot be used for any purpose at any inquiry or trial in respect of any offence. The only exception is that if the witness is called for the prosecution in such inquiry or trial, his said statement or any part of it, if reduced in writing, may be used by the prosecution to contradict the said witness, in such manner as provided under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act. To constitute an offence under Section 195 IPC, “the intention to procure conviction” by giving or fabricating false evidence, thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely, that it will cause any person to be convicted of an offence punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of seven years or upwards, is necessary. The contention is that the production of false evidence before a Court of law intending thereby to cause the accused to be convicted of the aforesaid offence would amount to commission of offence under Section 195 IPC. The crucial condition to constitute offence under Section 195 IPC, according to the petitioner, is whether on the alleged fabricated material, the possibility of conviction was there or not.

It is contended that neither the first information report nor the Case diary maintained under Section 172 Cr.P.C., or the charge sheet/report prepared under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. constitute evidence within the meaning of Chapter XI of the Indian Penal Code. The statement inserted whether in the police diary or the material otherwise collected by the police officer cannot be used or mean as evidence under the Indian Evidence Act