Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(ii).He further submitted that even during the course of investigation, a legal opinion was obtained from D.A., who categorically opined that at the most an offence if at all would be under Section 177 IPC, which pertains to furnishing of false information on any subject to any public 8 of 29 CRM-M-38837-2021 (O&M) along with other connected cases -9- servant etc. because even as per the allegations taken on the face of it show that the aforesaid Mohammad Saheed @ Raj Singh @ Raju gave a false information to either the bank officials or the other authorities with regard to the parentage or his name and so far as the petitioner Sucha Singh Maan is concerned, allegedly he had only conspired with him and therefore, on the face of it, at the most offence under Section 177 IPC could have been invoked as it was not a case of any fraud or forgery etc. The D.A. had categorically opined that for an offence under Section 177 IPC, the complainant had no locus standi for lodging a complaint before the police and the police could not have registered an FIR because it was a non-cognizable offence.

The learned Senior Counsel referred to another judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in "Bishan Das Vs. State of Punjab and another", 2014(15) SCC 242. The allegations in the FIR of that case were that the accused was a Sarpanch of the village and he knowingly issued a certificate to co-accused to enable him to take wrongful gain. He was proceeded under Section 177 & 420 IPC and was convicted. While referring to the provisions of Section 420 IPC, it was observed that there was no evidence to show that there was any fraudulent, dishonest intention on the part of the appellant in issuing certificate in favour of one Lal Chand. Issuance of false certificate cannot be said to be with dishonest intention to make wrongful gain for himself. Since the ingredients of Section 420 IPC were not proved, the conviction of the appellant under Section 420 IPC, could not be sustained and the same was set aside. However, conviction under Section 177 IPC was confirmed but the sentence was modified to the period undergone.

The grievance of both the parties can be considered on the basis of the entire factual matrix of the case. The FIR was registered in the year 21 of 29 CRM-M-38837-2021 (O&M) along with other connected cases -22- 2019. The allegations in the FIR were primarily pertaining to Mohammad Saheed @ Raj Singh @ Raju that he got issued Gas Connection, Ration Card, Aadhar Card and got his account opened in Punjab & Sind Bank whereby he had shown his parentage to be that of parents of Sucha Singh Maan and his brothers. Sucha Singh was not named in the FIR nor any role was attributable to him. However, conspiracy pertaining to another brother, namely, Mewa Singh was stated but he was never accused in the FIR or the other proceedings. However, challan against Sucha Singh was presented by adding Section 120-B IPC that he had conspired with the other co-accused and he introduced him for opening of the bank account wherein the parentage of the co-accused, namely, Mohammad Saheed @ Raju @ Raj Singh was that of the parents of Sucha Singh and the expression "Singh" was also added along with Raju and in this way, wrong information was supplied to the Bank and other authorities. The allegations of fraud and forgery were also made in the FIR. During the investigation, a legal opinion was obtained from the District Attorney, who had opined that at the most, it can be a case of Section 177 IPC, which is a non-cognizable offence, and therefore, the FIR cannot be registered because of the mandatory provisions of Section 195(1) Cr.P.C. where only criminal complaint can lie. The occurrence had allegedly taken place during the year 2004 and the present FIR was lodged after a period of 15 years.

So far as the arguments raised by Mrs. G.K. Mann and Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, learned counsels for the petitioners that even going by the allegations, some wrong information was given to the authorities, at the most Section 177 IPC could have been invoked and rather the District Attorney had also opined on the same lines and had recommended that FIR cannot be lodged since offence under Section 177 IPC is a non-cognizable offence, the same carries weight. The facts of the present case clearly suggest that at the most, it was a case of giving false information to the bank and other authorities where the parentage of Mohammad Saheed @ Raju @ Raj Singh was wrongly mentioned and the expression "Singh" was used with his name and so far as the petitioner Sucha Singh Maan is concerned, he had only introduced the aforesaid Raju. Therefore, the lodging of the FIR and its consequential proceedings cannot sustain for want of jurisdiction because Section 177 IPC is a non-cognizable offence, and therefore, criminal complaint could only have been filed by virtue of Section 195(1) Cr.P.C by a competent person in accordance with law.