ORAL ORDER

Draft amendment is allowed. Necessary amendment shall be carried out forthwith.

(1) RULE returnable forthwith. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appears and waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent-State.

(2) By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant seeks to invoke the inherent powers of this Court for quashing of the FIR being C.R.No.11191066210976 of 2021 registered with Vasna Police Station, Ahmedabad City, for the offences punishable under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

(3) I have heard Mr. Zubin Bharda, learned advocate for Mr.

Nisarg Raval, learned advocate for the applicant and Ms. Moxa Thakkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

(4) Mr. Bharda, learned advocate, at the outset, has mainly contended that in view of the FIR is in question squarely covered by the embargo raised under Section 195(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as no cognizance can be taken of the FIR with respect offence punishable under Section 186 of the IPC when a private complaint is filed before the competent court by the complainant and thereby, the FIR does not fall within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Cr.P.C. He further submitted that in view of the aforesaid provisions, the cognizance taken by the Magistrate pursuant to filing of the charge-sheet is barred by.

(4.1) To substantiate his contentions, Mr. Bharda, learned advocate has relied upon the judgement of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mohmadmohsin Mohmadirfan Chhalotiya versus State of Gujarat, reported in 2019(1) GLH 693.

(5) Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the present application, however, could not dispute the ratio laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Mohmadmohsin Chhalotiya (supra).

(6) No other and further submissions have been canvassed by the learned advocates for the respective parties except stated hereinabove.

(7) Having gone through the submissions of the respective parties, the question involved in the present petition is no more res-integra. The Coordinate Bench of this Court has, in the case of Mohmadmohsin Chhalotiya v. State of Gujarat, reported in 2019 (1) GLH 693, observed thus:

(18) The conspectus of the aforementioned judgements establishes the following parameters:

(a) There is no bar of taking cognizance under section 195(1)(a) of the Cr.P.C. if the offences are separate and distinct having different ingredients and characteristics from those contained in section

195(1)(a) of the Cr.P.C.;

(b) Bar of taking cognizance under section 195 of the Cr.P.C. will apply if the offences cannot be segregated and they form integral part;

(c) The offences must be committed as a part of the same transaction;

(d) Such offences can be segregated on the basis of element of public justice (viz. offences occurring in Chapter X of the Cr.P.C.) and personal element (viz offences under ChapterXVI of the Cr.P.C.) though committed as a part of the same transaction.If the personal element largely predominates, such offence can be taken cognizance without a written complaint;

and (e) Change of label or garb of an offence or misdescribing an offence will create a bar of section 195 of the Cr.P.C.

The coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Zaid Bhagar (supra) has observed that the common thread of the aforesaid proposition of law is the expression “taking cognizance” under section 195 of the Cr.P.C. since the opening words of the section are “No Court shall take cognizance”. Thus, there is no bar against the registration of the criminal case or investigation by the police or submission of a report by the police under section 173 of the Cr.P.C. I would like to further supplement the said view by observing that if after the investigation, it is found that a charge sheet is required to be filed for the distinct offences of the IPC other than which are barred under