Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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.

16. Though in cognizable offences police can arrest an accused without warrant but specific exception has been carved out by inserting Section 174-A I.P.C. in Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C., despite being a cognizable offence.

17. So far as the judgement, relied upon by learned A.G.A., passed by the Delhi High Court in Maneesh Goomer (supra) as well as judgement of Allahabad High Court in Moti Singh Sikarwar (supra) are concerned, same were based on the incorrect interpretation that all the offences, mentioned u/s 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C., are non-cognizable offences ingnoring the fact that Section 188 I.P.C. is a cognizable offence. Paragraph-9 of the judgement passed by Delhi High Court in Maneesh Goomer (supra) is being quoted below:-

"9. As regards the next contention of the Petitioner that for a prosecution under Section 174-A IPC no cognizance can be taken on a charge-sheet but on a complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C., it may be noted that Section 174-A IPC was introduced in the Code with effect from 23rd June, 2006. Section 195(1) Cr.P.C. provides that no Court shall take cognizance of offences punishable under Section 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the IPC or of the abatement, or attempt to commit the said offences, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. Section 195 Cr.P.C. has not been correspondingly amended so as to include Section 174-A IPC which was brought intp the Penal Code with effect from 23rd June, 2006. The Legislature was conscious of this fact and that is why though all other offences under chapter X of the Criminal Procedure Code are non- cognizable, offence punishable under Section 174-A IPC is cognizable. Thus the Police officer on a complaint under Section 174-A IPC is competent to register FIR and after investigation thereon file a charge-sheet before the Court of Magistrate who can take cognizance thereon. Thus, I find no merit in the contention raised by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner."

Conclusion

24. Therefore, if the court itself cannot take cognizance of the offence u/s 174-A I.P.C. on the basis of police report, then lodging the F.I.R. u/s 174-A I.P.C. is futile, and will be against the provision of Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C. Therefore, proceedings u/s 174-A I.P.C. can be initiated only on the basis of written complaint of the court which had initiated proceedings u/s 82 Cr.P.c. against the accused and F.I.R. is barred by Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C.

25. This Court also holds that judgement of Single Benches of Allahabad High Court in Moti Singh Sikarwar (supra) as well as of Delhi High Court in Maneesh Goomer (supra) have not laid down correct law regarding interpretation of Section 174-A I.P.C. read with Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C."