Narayan Singh Boudh vs State of Madhya Pradesh

B.D. Rathi, J.—Heard.

Present revision u/s 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 30.12.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhander, District Datia (M.P.) in Criminal Case No. 591/2013.

Prosecution case, in nutshell, is that on receipt of information from the informant, Town Inspector, Bhander, alongwith police force searched at in front of the house of one Bhanu Prakash where he was told that the workers of BSP were distributing currency notes to the voters. Thereafter, the petitioner, Bhanuprakash Rajpoot and Punjab Singh Parihar were intercepted who were sitting at the house of Bhanuprakash and six cheques were found there at the wooden bed (takhat). When they were specifically enquired about the cheques, they failed to explain. Then these three persons were arrested and those cheques were seized. After recording statements, charge-sheet was filed in the court of JMFC, Bhander under Sections 171(b) and 188 of IPC.

Shri V.K. Saxena, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has argued that Section 171-B is a non-cognizable offence and therefore, according to him, permission of the magistrate is necessary before registering the FIR or investigating the crime. It is further submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that police was required to abide by and follow the procedure prescribed under the provisions contained u/s 155 of Cr.P.C., in case of non-cognizable offence.

It is further argued that as per the provisions of Section 195(1)(a)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 of IPC except on the complaint in writing of public servant concerned. In this case neither the complaint was made by the competent authority nor has it been made by any authorized officer, therefore, cognizance could not have been taken. In this manner, the procedure contemplated u/s 195 of Cr.P.C. has been subsided, therefore, by allowing this petition, the order taking cognizance may be set aside.

Per contra, learned public prosecutor submitted that in the present matter cognizance has rightly been taken by the learned trial court and no flaw persists in the order impugned, hence, the instant petition filed by the petitioner deserves dismissal.

Having regard to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties, entire material available on record has been perused.

Indisputably, the offence u/s 171-B is a non-cognizable offence. Section 171-B defines the offence of bribery and 171-E provides for its punishment. In the schedule appended to the Code of Criminal Procedure, the offence u/s 171-E is made non-cognizable. Section 155 of Cr.P.C. provides that no police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial. In the matter of non-cognizable offence reported by anybody to the Police, the police shall refer to the informant to the Magistrate. In the present case, admittedly, no such permission of the Magistrate has been taken by the police before adverting to the investigation of the case. More so, in the case in hand the complaint was neither made by the competent authority nor has it been made by any authorized officer. Hence, in view of the mandatory provisions contained under Sections 155 and 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cognizance of offences under Sections 171-B and 188 of IPC could not have been taken by the Police. The investigation into a non-cognizable offence led by the police without order of Magistrate concerned is in contravention with the procedure prescribed for investigation of non-cognizable offences u/s 155 of Cr.P.C. Hence, criminal proceedings under Sections 171-B and 188 of IPC against the petitioner in Criminal Case No. 591/13 before the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhander, District Datia (M.P.) are quashed. The learned court below is directed to close the proceedings pending against the petitioner before it forthwith.

Revision stands disposed of accordingly.