Open iDraf
State Of Punjab v. Raj Singh

State Of Punjab
v.
Raj Singh

(Supreme Court Of India)

Criminal Appeal No. 82 Of 1998 (Arising Out Of Slp (Crl.) No. 2053) | 16-01-1998


M.K. Mukherjee, J.

1. 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. (filled 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 Reddy, 1983(1) RCR(Crl.) 354 : AIR 1983 SC 1053 [LQ/SC/1983/233] , 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.

4. Appeal allowed.

Advocates List

For the Appellant - Mr. G.S. Dhillon, Addl. Advocate General, with Mr. Darshan and Mr. R.S. Sodhi, Advocates. For the Respondent - Mr. N.D. Garg, Advocate.

For Petitioner
  • Shekhar Naphade
  • Mahesh Agrawal
  • Tarun Dua
For Respondent
  • S. Vani
  • B. Sunita Rao
  • Sushil Kumar Pathak

Bench List

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.K. MUKHERJEE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.T. THOMAS

Eq Citation

1998 ACR 735 (SC)

1998 (1) ALT (CRL) 220

[1998] 1 SCR 223

(1998) 2 SCC 391

AIR 1998 SC 768

1998 CRILJ 1104

1998 (1) ALD (CRL) 332

1998 (1) RCR (CRIMINAL) 576

1998 (1) CRIMES 122

1 (1998) CCR 286

JT 1998 (1) SC 145

1998 (1) SCALE 130

(1998) SCC (CRI) 642

(1998) 1 MLJ (CRL) 278

LQ/SC/1998/75

HeadNote

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 195(1)(b) or (ii) — Applicability — Statutory power of police to investigate into an FIR which discloses a cognisable offence in accordance with Ch. XII of CrPC — Held, is not in any way controlled or circumscribed by S. 195 CrPC — Upon completion of investigation into such an offence, Court would not be competent to take cognizance thereof in view of the embargo of S. 195(1)(b) CrPC — However, nothing therein deters the Court from filing a complaint for the offence on the basis of the FIR filled by the aggrieved private party and the materials collected during investigation provided it forms the requisite opinion and follows the procedure laid down in S. 340 CrPC