Surinder Singh Vishal vs State of Punjab

V.S. Aggarwal, J.

This is a petition filed by Surinder Singh Vishal (hereinafter described as ''the petitioner'') seeking quashing of FIR No. 15, dated 22.1.1996 registered at police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar.

The relevant facts are that Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar made a complaint to the Officer Incharge, Police Station, Civil Lines, Amritsar. On basis of the same a first information report had been recorded. The said complaint filed by the learned Judicial Magistrate reads :

"For registration of case under Sections 417, 419, 465, 466, 471 IPC against Amandeep Singh alias Bittu son of Joginder Singh resident of plot No. 272 New Shaheed Udham Singh Nagar, Amritsar and Surinder Singh Vishal son of Teja Singh, resident of 9705/37 Gali No. 9, Chowk Tahliwala, Sultanwind Road, Amritsar c/o Vishal Studio Chowk Pragdass, Amritsar and person who stood surety and posed himself as Tejinder Singh Amandeep Singh @ Bittu was accused in case State v. Vikas etc. FIR No. 45/94 under Sections 323, 325, 506, 148, 149 IPC registered in P.S. Civil Line on 25.3.1994. He was granted bail by Ld. CJM on 25.5.1994 on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5000/ along with one surety of like amount. He executed the Bail bond on the same day. One alleged Tejinder Singh son of Mohan Singh Jat resident of 470A Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar stood surety for Amandeep Singh @ Bittu. A photostat of sale deed regarding the plot situated at village Gumtala in favour of Tejinder Singh was also filed with surety bond to prove the soundness of surety. He was identified by Surinder Singh Vishal. Bail Bond/Surety Bond were accepted and attended by Shri B.S. Mehadiratta, Ld. C.J.M., Amritsar on 24.5.1994. Amandeep Singh did not attend the court on 8.10.1994 and Bail Bond/Surety Bond executed by him cancelled and forfeited to the State on 2.1.1995, Tejinder Singh mentioned in the surety bond was summoned to face the proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C. When he appeared in the court, he submitted that he never stood surety for accused Amandeep Singh and land (Forming Part in sale deed annexed with surety Bond) had already been disposed by him before the date of surety Bond i.e. 24.5.1994. From the statement of Tejinder Singh, it is clear that accused Amandeep Singh @ Bittu produced some other persons as his surety and posed him as Tejinder Singh. Surinder Singh Vishal identified that man as Tejinder Singh intentionally to cheat the court. Hence Amandeep Singh and Surinder Singh Vishal and person (who stood surety and posed himself as Tejinder Singh) played fraud with court by producing and identifying a wrong man before the court and committed an offence punishable under Sections 417, 419, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 IPC you are directed to register a case under Section 417, 419, 465, 466, 468 and 471 IPC against Amandeep Singh @ Bittu Surinder Singh Vishal and person who stood surety and posed himself as Tejinder Singh. You I.O. of the case can take the copy of any relevant document from the court file against valid receipt."

Petitioner seeks quashing of the same on the ground that the court cannot take cognizance of offences mentioned under Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure except on the complaint made by the court. Under Section 340 Cr.P.C. it was mandatory to hold an enquiry. No such enquiry has been held nor any finding had been recorded that it is expedient in the interest of justice. Therefore, the police cannot investigate the said offences, if any. On this ground it is claimed that since police cannot investigate the same, the first information report should be quashed.

In the reply filed, the petition has been contested. It is contended that petitioner identified Tejinder Singh as surety. Tejinder Singh appeared in the court and stated that he never stood surety in the case. The learned Judicial Magistrate could certainly make a complaint for registeration of the case and the police can investigate the same.

As is apparent from resume of the facts given above, the precise argument advanced is that when the court cannot take cognizance pertaining to offences contemplated under Section 195(1) Cr.P.C., the enquiry, if any, must be conducted by the court in terms of Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The police cannot investigate the cases contemplated under Section 195(1) Cr.P.C.

To appreciate the said contention reference can well be made to sub section (1) of Section 195 and Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The same read :

"195(1). No Court shall take cognizance

(a)(i) of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or

(ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence, or

(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence,

except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate;

(b)(i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely, Sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive, 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228 when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or

(ii) of any offence described in Section 463, or punishable under Section 471, Section 475 or Section 476, of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, or

(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit or the abetment of, any offence specified in subclause (i) or sub clause (ii),

except on the complaint in writing of that Court, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate.

..........

Procedure in cases mentioned in Section 195. (1) When, upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of subsection (1) of Section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary,

(a) record a finding to that effect;

(b) make a complaint thereof in writing;

(c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction;''

(d) take sufficient security for the appearance of the accused before such Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is nonbailable and the Court thinks it necessary to do so, send the accused in custody to such Magistrate; and

(e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate."

Reading of the same shows that while subsection (1) of Section 195 Cr.P.C. imposes a bar upon the court to take cognizance except on the complaint made by the public servant concerned in cases falling under Section 195(1)(a) Cr.P.C. and on the complaint of the Court in cases falling under Section 195(1)(b) of the said Code, but Section 340 Cr.P.C. prescribes the procedure for the Court. If the Court is of the opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that enquiry be made into offences referred to in clause (b) of subsection (1) of Section 195 Cr.P.C., in that event, it can hold the enquiry and record the finding. Thereafter, the complaint can be made to a Magistrate by the Court.

However, in the facts of the case the said argument loses its significance because as mentioned above a case has been registered against the petitioner besides Sections 465, 466, 468 and 475 of the Indian Penal Code. It had been registered further under Sections 417 and 419 of the Indian Penal Code. So far as Sections 417 and 419 are concerned, the same are not governed under Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. When there are offences regarding which the complaint could be made and the police could investigate, nothing debarred the Court from making the complainant to the police and getting the case registered. The substantive offences basically were those of cheating and impersonation. The police can investigate the same and register the case when a report had been received from a Judicial Officer. Otherwise also in the Code of Criminal procedure, there is no provision which restricts or prohibits the police from investigating the cases regarding which Section 195(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is attracted. The only restriction is that the Court cannot take cognizance except on the complaint of the Court. That stage even has not arrived. If the police investigates and subsequently the Court makes the complaint which in fact had been made to the police already, there is no legal ban in getting the first information report recorded. Consequently, the petitioner at this stage is without merit.

For these reasons given above the petition fails and is dismissed.