Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(Emphasis supplied)

12. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in case of C. Muniappan v. State of Tamil Nadu 2010 9 SCC 567, after considering several judicial precedents, had explained the law of Section 195 of Cr.P.C. with respect to charges under Section 188 of IPC in the following manner:

"...Charges under Section 188 IPC ***
34. Learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that no charge could have been framed under Section 188 IPC in the absence of a written complaint by the officer authorised for that purpose, the conviction under Section 188 IPC is not sustainable. More so, it falsifies the very genesis of the case of the prosecution as the prohibitory orders had not been violated, no subsequent incident could occur. Thus, entire prosecution case falls.
35. Undoubtedly, the law does not permit taking cognizance of any offence under Section 188 IPC, unless there is a complaint in writing by the competent Public Servant. In the instant case, no such complaint had ever been filed. In such an eventuality and taking into account the settled legal principles in this regard, we are of the view that it was not permissible for the trial Court to frame a charge under Section 188 IPC..."
16. As noticed above, subject complaint does not satisfy the requirements of Section 195 Cr.P.C. and, accordingly, the Trial Court could not have taken cognizance of the offence under Section 188 IPC either on the final report or on the supplementary chargesheet filed by the prosecution.
17. Since the subject proceedings suffer from infraction of Section 195 Cr.P.C., the impugned orders dated 09.12.2016 and 14.11.2017 cannot be sustained and, accordingly, the action taken by the prosecution against the petitioner for the offence under Section 188 IPC is rendered void ab initio being against the dictum of the Supreme Court in Daulat Ram vs. State of Punjab (1962) Supp. 2 SCR 812..."