Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10. In case of M.S. Ahlawat (supra) direct conviction of petitioner by the Supreme Court under Section 193 IPC for making a false statement at different stages in the Court was recalled and set aside on the ground that the Supreme Court could not itself inflict the punishment under Section 193 IPC. It ought to have, instead followed procedure under Section 195 and 340 Cr.P.C. In this judgment, the Supreme Court clearly held in para 5 and 6 which are being reproduced herein for ready reference:-

6. Section 340 CrPC prescribes the procedure as to how a complaint may be preferred under Section 195 CrPC. While under Section 195 CrPC it is open to the court before which the offence was committed to prefer a complaint for the prosecution of the offender, Section 340 CrPC prescribes the procedure as to how that complaint may be preferred.

Provisions under Section 195 CrPC are mandatory and no court can take cognizance of offences referred to therein [2024:RJ-JP:2100] (14 of 25) [CRLMP-6706/2015] (sic). It is in respect of such offences the court has jurisdiction to proceed under Section 340 CrPC and a complaint outside the provisions of Section 340 CrPC cannot be filed by any civil, revenue or criminal court under its inherent jurisdiction."

This Court finds that in the FIR, offences under Section 420, 468, 471 and 218 IPC have been added just to add cognizable nature of offence with the offences under Section 193, 466 IPC which are non-cognizable in nature, in order to register the FIR and proceed for investigation just to show for making the compliance of directions of the High Court issued in the order dated 04.08.2015. It may be noted that in pursuance to directions of the High Court issued vide order dated 04.08.2015, the Investigating Officer should have proceeded to register a criminal complaint against the petitioner before the concerned Judicial Magistrate after following procedure prescribed under Section 340 Cr.P.C., but the investigating officer adopted a wrong track to register the FIR impugned for offences under Sections 193, 466 IPC, after including other offences of cognizable nature under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 218 IPC, which at all do not attract in the present case.

19. Having discussed the background of entire factual matrix wherein the impugned FIR came be to registered against the petitioner and have enlightened with the proposition of law discussed hereinabove, this Court comes to the conclusion that the High Court vide order dated 04.08.2015 passed in SB Criminal Writ Petition No.5550/2015 issued directions to the Investigating Officer to register a case against the petitioner for producing a false document of certificate dated 24.07.2015 which was prima facie observed by the High Court containing some incorrect and false information about the accused Mr.Gaurakhi Nagar in respect of his age and number of children he had. In the certificate issued by the petitioner, age of Mr.Gaurakhi Nagar was indicated as 41 years whereas he was found to be age of 68 years and as far as number of his children is concerned in the certificate it was indicated that he had four children from his wife Smt. Rama Devi whereas he was found to have eight children, therefore, at the most, for giving such nature of incorrect and false information in the judicial proceedings, petitioner could have been prosecuted for offences under Section 193 IPC and at the most under Section 466 IPC not more than that. Since both such offences are non- [2024:RJ-JP:2100] (24 of 25) [CRLMP-6706/2015] cognizable, the FIR could not have been registered and same is hit by the provisions of Section 195 and 340 Cr.P.C. which are mandatory in nature. The Investigating Officer could have register a criminal complaint to prosecute the petitioner for such offences before the Judicial Magistrate, after following the mandate of Section 340 Cr.P.C. but he lodged the impugned FIR for such offence by adding other cognizable nature of offences under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 218 IPC which do not attract at all in the present case, even as per the allegations against the petitioner, for want of essential ingredients to constitute such offences.