Delhi District Court
State vs Surender @ Sheelu on 24 March, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAMESH KUMAR, SPECIAL JUDGE:NDPS
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
REVISION NO. 48/11
STATE .........REVISIONIST
VERSUS
SURENDER @ SHEELU
SON OF RAMDIA
R/O HOUSE NO. 215,
VILLAGE BEGUMPUR,
DELHI ...........RESPONDENT
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 30.09.2011
DATE OF HEARING ARGUMENTS : 24.03.2012
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 24.03.2012
ORDER
By this order, I shall dispose of revision petition filed under section 397 (1) Cr.P.C. against the order dated 04.08.2011, passed by the ld. Trial Court, whereby the ld. Trial Court has discharged the respondent, namely, Surender @ Sheelu for the offence punishable under section 174A IPC in a case entitled as State Vs. Surender @ Sheelu, FIR No. 215/08, PS Saraswati Vihar. It has been prayed that the present CR NO.48/11 Page 1 of 5 revision be allowed and the order dated 04.08.2011, passed by the ld. Trial Court be set aside.
2. It has been contended by the ld. Addl. PP for the State/revisionist that ld. Trial Court has erred by refusing to take cognizance of the offence under section 174A IPC, vide order dated 19.11.2010. It has further been contended that the ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that ld. ASJ while discharging the accused for the offences punishable under sections 395/397/412/120B/34 IPC has remanded back the case for trial for the offence punishable under section 174A IPC, therefore, ld. MM had no opportunity to refuse the cognizance. It has further been contended that ld. Trial Court has wrongy come to the conclusion that in order to take cognizance under section 174A IPC, complaint by public servant under section 195 Cr.P.C. is mandatory. It has further been contended that ld. Trial Court has erred by refusing to take cognizance of the offence under section 174A IPC as there was no requirement of complaint under section 195 Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable 174A IPC. It has further been contended that the discharge order of Ld. Trial Court is based on his own surmises and conjectures rather than on the true facts of this case. It has further been contended that the Ld. Trial Court vide its impugned order dated 04.08.2011 has wrongly discharged the respondent/accused, Surender @ Sheelu, in an illegal and arbitrary manner, which is totally unwarranted, erroneous and against the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. I have heard the arguments on behalf of ld. Addl. PP for the State and have gone through the record file carefully.
4. Section 195 Cr.PC. is reproduced below as under Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of CR NO.48/11 Page 2 of 5 public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence.(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 CR NO.48/11 Page 3 of 5 commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in subclause
(i) or subclause (ii), except on the complaint in writing of that Court, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate.
(2) Where a complaint has been made by a public servant under clause(a) of subsection (1) any authority to which he is administratively subordinate may order the withdrawal of the complaint and send a copy of such order to the Court ; and upon its receipt by the Court, no further proceedings shall be taken on the complaint:
Provided that no such withdrawal shall be ordered if the trial in the Court of first instance has been concluded.
5. Section 174A IPC is reproduced below as under Nonappearance in response to a proclamation under section 82 of Act 2 of 1974.-- Whoever fails to appear at the specified place and the specified time as required by a proclamation published under sub section (1) of section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both, and where a declaration has been made under sub section (4) of that section pronouncing him as a proclaimed offender, he shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years CR NO.48/11 Page 4 of 5 and shall also be liable to fine.
6. A plain reading of section 195 Cr.P.C. makes it apparently clear that for the offence punishable U/s 174A IPC, a complaint in writing is sine qua non or one of the essential conditions. Thus, the written complaint is prerequisite for taking cognizance for the offence punishable U/s 174A IPC.
7. In the present case, Ld. Trial Court has mentioned in its order dated 04.08.2011, that after reading of both the said sections, it is evident that for the offence under section 174A, IPC, the complaint has to be made in writing, as per the provisions of Section 195 (1) (a) (i) which has been, admittedly, not in the instant case and accordingly, the cognizance of the offence is denied.
8. In view of the above discussions, I am of the considered view that Ld. Trial Court was justified in its view that the cognizance U/s 174A IPC cannot be taken in the absence of complaint under section 195 Cr.P.C. It is so, because admittedly there was no complaint in writing, as per requirement of section 195 Cr.P.C.. Thus, there is no illegality, infirmity or irregularity in the order dated 04.08.2011 passed by the ld. Trial Court. The present revision petition deserves to be dismissal. Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed.
9. The ld. Trial Court record with copy of this order be sent back.
Revision file be consigned to the record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (RAMESH KUMAR)
COURT TODAY i.e. 24.03.2012 ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
CR NO.48/11 Page 5 of 5