Madhya Pradesh High Court
Indrajeet Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 September, 2017
MCRC-11351-2014
(INDRAJEET SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
06-09-2017
Shri P.K. Thakre, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Aseem Dixit, learned GA for respondent/State.
This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court and to quash the criminal complaint case No.1618/2005 pending before CJM, Khandwa for offence under Sections 182 and 211 of IPC.
Brief facts just necessary for the disposal of this petition are that, an Istgasa No.01/05 registered at Police Station, Kotwali, Khandwa has been filed under Sections 182 and 211 of IPC against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner/Indrajeet made a written complaint against Deepchand, Naresh and Raj Mahendra, the Manager of the State Bank of Indore, Khandwa alleging that FDR worth Rs.30,00,000/-(Thirty Lacs) was encashed illegally. On this complaint by Indrajeet, Crime No.530/2004 were registered for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 418, 423, 187 of IPC. After investigation, it was found that the allegation are false. Therefore, Khariji No.04/04 dated 21/10/2004 was filed and was later accepted by the Court. Therefore, it was requested to initiate proceeding under Section 182 and 211 of IPC against the complainant/Indrajeet for registering crime No. 530/2004.
The petitioner has raised a legal issue that Istagasa was filed by the SHO, Kotwali, Khadwa which is not maintainable on the ground that cognizance cannot be taken for such offences on an Istagasa which is not prescribed under the Criminal Procedure Code.
Heard the parties and perused the record.
Section 195 of Cr.P.C. provides prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants for offences against public justice which includes Sections 186 and 211 of IPC.
For better understanding of the provision, it would be appropriate to reproduce Section 195 of Cr.P.C. which reads as follow:
S. 195 (1) No Court shall take cognizance-
(a) (i) of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of he 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 section of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely, Section 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 sub-clause (i) or sub-
clause (ii), *[except on the complaint in writing of that court or by such officer of the Court as that Court may authorize in writing in this behalf, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate.] According to provision of Section 195(1) (i-a) and 195(1) (b-i) which includes the offences of Section 186 and 211 of IPC, no cognizance can be taken except on the complaint on writing of the Court or by such officer of the Court as the Court may authorized in writing in this behalf, no Court shall take cognizance of these offences.
Therefore, the procedure followed in the present case is not in consonance of the provision of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the petition is allowed. Criminal complaint case No.1618/2005 based on the Istagasa filed by the SHO, Khandwa is, therefore, quashed.
(SUSHIL KUMAR PALO) JUDGE RS