Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: section 188 cr.p.c in Sanjay Kashyap @ Sanjay Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 12 November, 2025Matching Fragments
"2(c). "cognizable offence" means an offence for which, and "cognizable case" means a case in which, a police officer may, in accordance with the First Schedule or under any other law for the time being in force, arrest without warrant."
10. Therefore, it is clear that in cognizable offences, police can arrest the accused without warrant. It is also clear from perusal of Section 195 Cr.P.C. that offences, punishable u/s 172 to 188 I.P.C. are cognizable by the court only when a complaint in writing is filed by public servant concerned or his subordinate. As per Section 21 I.P.C., "public servant" includes every judge, including any person empowered by law to discharge any adjudicatory function. Therefore, the Magistrate who issues proceedings u/s 82 Cr.P.C. will be deemed to be public servant within the meaning of Section 195 Cr.P.C. The word "complaint" referred in Section 195 Cr.P.C. is defined u/s 2(d) Cr.P.C. which is being quoted below:
13. After insertion of Section 174-A in I.P.C. as well as in First Schedule of Cr.P.C., further amendment was also made in the year 2006 in Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C., but no amendment was made in Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C. Therefore, at the time of inserting Section 174-A in I.P.C. as well as in First Schedule of Cr.P.C. after Section 174, legislature was well aware about the category of offences u/s 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C. and for this reason, while making amendment in Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. in 2006, Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C. was kept untouched knowingly by the legislature. The above position clearly reveals that while inserting Section 174-A I.P.C., legislature was well aware that in Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C., apart from Section 188 I.P.C., one more cognizable offence i.e. 174-A I.P.C. is being inserted for providing the bar of cognizance on the part of court for offences mentioned in Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C., except on the complaint.
(Emphasis supplied)
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the Karnataka High Court as well as Gujarat High Court, in the aforesaid judgments, have held that if the offences form part of same transaction of the offences contemplated under Section 195(1) of Cr.P.C., then it is not possible to split up and hold that prosecution of the accused for the other offences should be upheld, therefore, learned counsel has stated that in view of the bar under Section 195 of Cr.P.C., the prosecution under Section 188 IPC may fall against the petitioner and since the offences form part of same transaction, therefore, the chargesheet consisting Section 188 IPC and other Sections and further proceedings are liable to be quashed.
(vi) From the aforesaid, it is apparent that the case of the prosecution is a case of no evidence.
(vii) In the facts of the case this Court finds that offences form part of same transaction of the offences indicated under Section 195 Cr.P.C. including Section 188 Cr.P.C. and it is not possible to split up and hold that the prosecution of the accused/applicant for the other offences should be upheld.
13. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant application is allowed for the reliefs sought. Consequently, entire criminal proceedings arising out as Case Crime/F.I.R. No.0182 of 2022 dated 10.03.2022 are hereby set aside/quashed, qua the applicant.