The main legal point established in the judgment is that the F.I.R. under Section 174-A I.P.C. was barred by Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C., and the court's decision was based on the interpretation of 'cognizable offences', the definition of 'complaint', and the legislative intent behind the inclusion of Section 174-A I.P.C. in the category of offences mentioned in Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT :

Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the F.I.R. dated 17.7.2023 in Case Crime No. 162 of 2023, under Section 174-A I.P.C., P.S. Lodha, District-Aligarh.

Factual Matrix

3. An F.I.R. dated 21.10.2022 in Case Crime No. 252 of 2022, under Sections 458, 380 I.P.C., P.S. Lodha, District Aligarh was lodged by one Jitendra Singh against Bachchu Singh, Ram Nivas and one unknown person. During investigation of the case, the name of the petitioners also came into picture on the basis of evidence collected. Thereafter, a charge sheet under Sections 395, 412 I.P.C., was submitted by the police on 20.2.2023 against the named accused as well as against the present petitioners. Learned Magistrate also took cognizance on the above charge sheet on 13.3.2023. Thereafter, non-bailable warrants were issued against the petitioners on 16.3.2023 and a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was also issued on 20.5.2023 against the petitioners. Thereafter, the impugned F.I.R. under Section 174-A I.P.C. was lodged against the petitioners on 17.7.2023 at P.S. Lodha, District Aligarh.

Submission of the petitioners

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned F.I.R. is barred under Section 195 Cr.P.C. as this Section specifically provides that cognizance of any offence punishable u/s 172 to 188 I.P.C., cannot be taken by the court except on the complaint in writing of the court concerned or its officer. However, in the present case the F.I.R. has been lodged by the Investigating Officer and even charge sheet of the same cannot be termed as "complaint" as per Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. because the same provides only for non-cognizable offences whereas Section 174-A I.P.C. is a cognizable offence.

5. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgement of Punjab and Haryana High Court delivered in Pradeep Kumar vs. State of Punjab and another; CRM-M-41656-2023 (O&M), decided on 23.8.2023. In that judgement, the Punjab and Haryana High Court observed that cognizance u/s 174-A cannot be taken except on the basis of a formal written complaint as required u/s 195 Cr.P.C.

Submission of the respondents

6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that Section 174-A I.P.C. was introduced by way of amendment in Cr.P.C. in 2005 without making any amendment in Section 195 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that all the offences which are mentioned u/s 195 Cr.P.C. i.e. from Section 172 to 188 I.P.C. are non-cognizable offences for which bar has been created for taking cognizance except on a complaint. However, Section 174-A I.P.C. is cognizable offence, therefore, bar prescribed in Section 195 Cr.P.C. does not apply for offence u/s 174-A I.P.C. It is lastly submitted by learned A.G.A. that had the legislature intended to include Section 174-A I.P.C in the category of cases mentioned in Section 195(1)(a) Cr.P.C., then legislature would have amended the provision of Section 195 Cr.P.C. so as to include Section 174-A I.P.C.

7. In support of his contention, learned A.G.A. has relied upon the judgement of the Apex Court in Jayant and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others; Criminal Appeal No. 824-825 of 2020, decided on 3.12.2020 (MANU/SC/0912/2020); the judgement in the case of Pradeep S. Wodeyar vs. State of Karnataka; Criminal Appeal Nos. 1288-1289-1290 of 2021, reported in 2021 0 Supreme (SC) 853 and also the judgement of Delhi High Court in Maneesh Goomer vs. State, Criminal M.C. No. 4208 of 2011, decided on 4.1.2012 and judgement of Allahabad High Court in the case of Moti Singh Sirkarwar vs. State of U.P. and others in Application u/s 482 No. 31819 of 2015 (MANU/UP/2481/2016).

Analysis

8. Before dealing with the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the F.I.R. u/s 174-A I.P.C. is barred by Section 195 Cr.P.C., it will be appropriate to discuss the l