1998 JTR(SC) 75
1998 1 AICLR 436 ; 1998 AIR(SC) 768 ; 1998 AIR(SCW) 483 ; 1998 1 ALD(Cri)(SC) 332 ; 1998 36 AllCriC 399 ; 1998 AllMR(Cri)(SC) 421 ; 1998 1 CCR(SC) 286 ; 1998 CriLR 548 ; 1998 1 Crimes(SC) 122 ; 1998 CrLJ 1104 ; 1998 1 EastCrC(SC) 652 ; 1998 1 JT 145 ; 1998 1 KLT(SN) 75 ; 1998 1 RCR(Cri) 576 ; 1998 1 Scale 130 ; 1998 2 SCC 391 ; 1998 SCC(Cri) 642 ; 1998 1 SCR 223 ; 1998 1 Supreme 255
1998(1) Supreme 255
Supreme Court of India
(From High Court of Punjab and Haryana)
M.K. Mukherjee and K.T. Thomas, JJ.
State of Punjab -Appellant
versus
Raj Singh & Anr. -Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 82 of 1998
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2053 of 1997)
Decided on 16-1-1998
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Mr. G.S. Dhillon, Addl. Advocate, General, Mr. Darshan and Mr. R.S. Sodhi, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Mr. N.D. Garg, Advocate.
Important Point
Provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C. has nothing to do with statutory power of police to investigate into an FIR which discloses a cognizable offence even if offence is alleged to have been committed in or in relation to, any proceedings in Court.
Act Referred :CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.340, S.195, S.195(i)(b)(ii)
(A) The impugned order of the High Court quashing the FIR was challenged on the grounds that Sections 419, 420, 467 and 468 of the IPC alleged in the FIR are offences punishable under Sections 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Cr.P.C., which prohibits the court from entertaining or investigating such cognisable offences. However, a plain reading of Section 195 Cr.P.C. reveals that it operates only at the stage where the court intends to take cognizance of an offence under Section 190(1) Cr.P.C. and does not affect the statutory power of the police to investigate an FIR disclosing a cognisable offence under Chapter XII of the Code, even if it relates to court proceedings. The court in the referenced case took cognizance on a private complaint involving forgery linked to a money receipt in civil court, which is distinguishable, as the present challenge pertains to the quashing of the FIR rather than the courts inability to take cognizance under Section 195 Cr.P.C.
(B) The statutory power of the police to investigate cognisable offences under the Code is independent and not controlled by Section 195 Cr.P.C. The embargo of Section 195(1)(b) applies only to the courts competence to take cognizance upon a charge-sheet, not to the investigation initiated on an FIR filed by an aggrieved party. The court must proceed under Section 340 Cr.P.C. if it intends to file a complaint based on investigation materials.
Facts of the case:
An FIR was lodged against respondents alleging offences under Sections 419, 420, 467 and 468 of the IPC. The High Court quashed the FIR on the ground that these offences are covered under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C., which bars the police from investigating them.
Findings of Court:
The High Courts order was unsustainable because Section 195 Cr.P.C. does not restrict the polices power to investigate an FIR disclosing a cognisable offence. The court emphasized that the statutory investigation power under Chapter XII remains unaffected, and the prohibition under Section 195 applies only when the court seeks to take cognizance of the offence on a complaint or FIR.
Issues:
Whether Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. prohibits the police from investigating an FIR alleging offences that are also covered under Chapter XX of the Cr.P.C. relating to court proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi:
Section 195 Cr.P.C. operates only at the stage of court cognizance and does not limit the polices statutory power to investigate cognisable offences under the Code. The FIR remains investigable, and the court cannot take cognizance on a private complaint under Section 195(1)(b) if it relates to such offences, but the investigation by police is valid.
Result:
Appeal allowed; impugned order of the High Court quashing the FIR set aside.
(A) The impugned order of the High Court quashing the FIR was challenged on the grounds that Sections 419, 420, 467 and 468 of the IPC alleged in the FIR are offences punishable under Sections 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Cr.P.C., which prohibits the court from entertaining or investigating such cognisable offences. However, a plain reading of Section 195 Cr.P.C. reveals that it operates only at the stage where the court intends to take cognizance of an offence under Section 190(1) Cr.P.C. and does not affect the statutory power of the police to investigate an FIR disclosing a cognisable offence under Chapter XII of the Code, even if it relates to court proceedings. The court in the referenced case took cognizance on a private complaint involving forgery linked to a money receipt in civil court, which is distinguishable, as the present challenge pertains to the quashing of the FIR rather than the courts inability to take cognizance under Section 195 Cr.P.C.
(B) The statutory power of the police to investigate cognisable offences under the Code is independent and not controlled by Section 195 Cr.P.C. The embargo of Section 195(1)(b) applies only to the courts competence to take cognizance upon a charge-sheet, not to the investigation initiated on an FIR filed by an aggrieved party. The court must proceed under Section 340 Cr.P.C. if it intends to file a complaint based on investigation materials.
Facts of the case:
An FIR was lodged against respondents alleging offences under Sections 419, 420, 467 and 468 of the IPC. The High Court quashed the FIR on the ground that these offences are covered under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C., which bars the police from investigating them.
Findings of Court:
The High Courts order was unsustainable because Section 195 Cr.P.C. does not restrict the polices power to investigate an FIR disclosing a cognisable offence. The court emphasized that the statutory investigation power under Chapter XII remains unaffected, and the prohibition under Section 195 applies only when the court seeks to take cognizance of the offence on a complaint or FIR.
Issues:
Whether Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. prohibits the police from investigating an FIR alleging offences that are also covered under Chapter XX of the Cr.P.C. relating to court proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi:
Section 195 Cr.P.C. operates only at the stage of court cognizance and does not limit the polices statutory power to investigate cognisable offences under the Code. The FIR remains investigable, and the court cannot take cognizance on a private complaint under Section 195(1)(b) if it relates to such offences, but the investigation by police is valid.
Result:
Appeal allowed; impugned order of the High Court quashing the FIR set aside.
ORDER
Leave granted. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. We are unable to sustain the impugned order of the High Court quashing the F.I.R. lodged against the respondents alleging commission of offences under Sections 419, 420, 467 and 468 I.P.C. by them in course of the proceeding of a civil suit, on the ground that Section 195 (1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. prohibited entertainment of and investigation into the same by the police. From a plain reading of Section 195 Cr.P.C. it is manifest that it comes into operation at the stage when the Court intends to take cognizance of an offence under Section 190(1) Cr.P.C.; and it has nothing to do with the statutory power of the police to investigate into an F.I.R. which discloses a cognisable offence, in accordance with Chapter XII of the Code even if the offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in Court. In other words, the statutory power of the Police to investigate under the Code is not in any way controlled or circumscribed by Section 195 Cr.P.C. It is of course true that upon the charge-sheet (challan), if any, filed on completion of the investigation into such an offence the Court would not be competent to take cognizance thereof in view of the embargo of Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C., but nothing therein deters the Court from filing a complaint for the offence on the basis of the F.I.R. (filed by the aggrieved private party) and the materials collected during investigation, provided it forms the requisite opinion and follows the procedure laid down in Section 340 Cr.P.C. The judgment of this Court in Gopal Krishna Menon and Anr. v. D. Raja Reddy1 on which the High Court relied, has no manner of application to the facts of the instant case for there cognizance was taken on a private complaint even though the offence of forgery was committed in respect of a money receipt produced in the Civil Court and hence it was held that the Court could not take cognizance on such a complaint in view of Section 195 Cr.P.C.
3. For the foregoing reasons, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order.
Appeal allowed.
*********