Delhi District Court
State vs Smt Kanta W/O Sh. Gulab Singh on 27 May, 2011
-1-
IN THE COURT OF SH. GURDEEP SINGH
ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE-04, NORTH-EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
Cr. Revision No. : 24/2011
Unique Case ID : 02402R0 144642011
In Re.
1. State
...Revisionist /Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Smt Kanta w/o Sh. Gulab Singh
R/o : C-3/155, Nand Nagari
Delhi.
... Respondent
Cr. R. No. : 24/11
Date of Institution : 12.05.2011
Date of reserving judgment/order : 25.05.2011
Date of pronouncement : 27.05.2011
ORDER
1. Vide this order, I shall decide revision petition preferred by State against order dated 28.03.2011 whereby Ld.MM (NE) Sh. Ankur Jain refused to grant the permission/complaint u/s 195 Cr.PC.
2. Trial court record was also summoned and I have gone through the same.
3. I have heard Sh. Virender Singh, Ld. Addl. PP for State. I had also gone through the record.
4. The relevant facts for the disposal of the present revision Cr. R No. : 24/11, State vs. Kanta Page 1 of 4 -2- petition are that accused Kanta was declared proclaimed offender (P.O.) vide order dated 18.01.2011 by Ld. MM and thereafter she was arrested and taken into custody vide order dated 05.03.2011. Thereafter IO has moved an application requesting permission u/s 195 Cr.PC. Ld. MM vide order dated 28.03.2011 declined the permission observing therein the supplementary chargesheet/challan was purposed to be filed u/s 195 Cr.PC but such powers can be exercised only with respect to the offence already committed and declined to grant permission.
5. Ld. Addl. PP submitted that our own Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 11.08.2010 in case title as State vs. Proclaimed Offenders of Delhi & Ors., CRL. M.C. 2021/2010 and Crl. M.A. No. 7761/2010 observed as under :
This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.PC against the order dated 03.05.2010 passed by the learned ACMM in case FIR No. 21/2002 u/s 379/34 IPC, P.S Pahar Ganj, Delhi, whereby the learned ACMM has directed the Commissioner of Police to register the separate FIRs against all the proclaimed offenders in all the cases.
It is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that there is no need to register the separate FIRs, as the whereabouts of most of the proclaimed offenders are not known to Cr. R No. : 24/11, State vs. Kanta Page 2 of 4 -3- the police and this exercise shall unnecessary burden The police authorities. However, learned Standing Counsel submits that Section 174-A IPC can be inserted in the main chargesheet or the supplementary chargesheet can be filed when the accused are arrested.
Heard.
I agree with arguments advanced by the learned Standing Counsel for the State. The order dated 03.05.2010 passed by the learned ACMM is illegal and unwarranted and the same is therefore, quashed.
With these directions, the petition alongwith pending application stands disposed of.
6. Ld. Addl. PP further submitted that therefore the order passed by Ld. MM is illegal.
7. To understand the controversy it must be understood as to when Section 174 (A) IPC was added in the Code. The same was added after amendment of Indian Penal Code in the year 2006. However, no corresponding amendment was carried out in Code of Criminal Procedure.
8. Section 195 Cr.PC provides that if any offence is committed section from 172 to 188 IPC the court is barred from taking cognizance unless the complaint is filed by the court or public servant. However, the offence u/s 174 (A) IPC is cognizable. Further offence mentioned from 172 to 188 are Cr. R No. : 24/11, State vs. Kanta Page 3 of 4 -4- non-cognizable, and hence there is provision for complaint. Section 174 (A) IPC cannot be read u/s 195 Cr.PC to mean that it comes within 172 to 188 and hence to mean prior complaint is required before taking cognizance. The offence U/s 174 (A) IPC is distinct offence which is cognizable. Therefore I am of the opinion that permission u/s 195 Cr.PC is not required for offence 174 (A) IPC.
9. As regards, the observation of our own Hon'ble High Court, the supplementary chargesheet can be filed in the main chargesheet for offence u/s 174 (A) IPC. Therefore there is no apparent conflict in the observation of hon'ble High Court and Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore no permission u/s 195 Cr.PC is required and the State is at liberty to file the supplementary chargesheet. With these observation, the revision petition is disposed of.
10. Trial court record be sent back alongwith the copy of the order. Revision file be consigned to record room. Announced in the open court on today i.e. 27.05.2011.
GURDEEP SINGH ASJ-04/NE/KKD/27.05.2011 Cr. R No. : 24/11, State vs. Kanta Page 4 of 4