Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. On consideration of the charge-sheet, the complaint of Inspector Madanjit Singh and the documentary evidence gathered in the course of investigation, the ACMM passed the order dated 04.11.2006, taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 182/201/109/114/120B IPC and also suo moto cognizance of the offences under Sections 177 and 193 IPC. The order dated 4th November, 2006, the quashing of which is sought in the present writ petition, reads as follows:

In The Court of Smt. Kamini Lau, ACCM, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.
State v. Harish Sharma etc. P.S. Sarita Vihar 4.11.2006 Fresh charge sheet has been filed on 1.11.2006. It be checked and registered as per rules.

Present: APP for the State Along with I.O. Inspector Sushil Chandra Sharma and Supervisory Officer ACP Dr. B.B. Choudhary.

After having considered the material on record and having heard the Investigating Officer, this Court is of the opinion that not only the provisions which have been invoked by the Investigating Officer i.e. under Section 182/201/109/114/120B IPC but also the provisions under Section 177 and 193 IPC should have been invoked since there is sufficient material on record to show that all the accused persons were under legal obligation to furnish correct information with regard to the accused persons. Further as per the material on record not only have the accused conspired to destroy the evidence but they have tried to fabricate false evidence for the purpose of being used in the judicial proceedings.

Announced in the open Court.
Dated 4.11.2006 Sd/-
(Dr. Kamini Lau) ACMM, New Delhi

5. Mr.Harish Salve, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition (Crl.) Nos.35/06, 37/06, 38/06 and 39/06 contended that the proceedings initiated against the petitioners are ex facie without jurisdiction since the said proceedings do not emanate from a complaint filed by the concerned police officer. Section 195(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure mandates that cognizance of an offence under Section 177 to 188 IPC can only be taken upon filing a complaint by the concerned public servant, and expressly bars any Court from taking cognizance of an offence under Sections 177 to 188 of the Penal Code except on a complaint in writing made by a public servant. In the present case, he contended that, though it is submitted by the prosecution that the complaint dated 30th October, 2006 was filed by the concerned public servant along with the charge-sheet, the proceedings have not emanated from the purported complaint filed, but have emanated out of a Report filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C, made in an investigation pursuant to the order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

52. The contention of the petitioners that there is nothing on record to warrant the prosecution of the petitioners under Sections 182/201/177 is also not borne out from the record as also their contention that Section 120B IPC is not attracted. With regard to the offences under Sections 182/201/177 and 193 IPC, there is ample material on record in respect of the said offences. The very fact that the petitioners took part in the press conference and gave incorrect facts to the media prima facie shows that they were a part of the conspiracy to conceal the offence and screen the offenders. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State v. Nalini and Ors. reported as , the existence of a conspiracy has to be inferred from proved circumstances, as in an offence which is shrouded with secrecy no direct evidence of common intention of the conspirators can normally be produced before the Court nor had the stage for production of such evidence if any, arisen.