Gurnam Singh Bhullar vs State Of Punjab on 5 July, 2023
8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jiwan
Kumar vs. State of Punjab cited (supra) held as under:-
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.46 seconds)Documents citing
Jiwan Kumar And Anr vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 31 August, 2018
Gopal Bhargava vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 November, 2020
6. Applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and the provisions contained under
Section 188 of IPC and Section 195 of Cr.P.C. as
well as the judgment delivered by the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in Jiwan Kumar's case (Supra)
which has also been quoted in the impugned order,
the learned Single Judge held that in this case there
was a violation of the statutory provisions contained
under Section 195 Cr.P.C. in registering the FIR as
Crime No. 60/2011 for an offence under Section 188
of IPC dated 13.02.2011, the same was accordingly
quashed.
Tani Sidhu vs State Of Punjab on 17 November, 2022
In support of
his argument learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon
the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal
Nos.127-130 of 2008 titled as 'C. Muniappan and others Vs. State of
Tamil Nadu' decided on 30.08.2010; judgment of this Court passed in
CWP No.772 of 2007 titled as 'Jiwan Kumar Vs. State of Punjab and
others' decided on 18.03.2008; CRM-M-51595-2021 titled as 'Pawan
Giri and others Vs. State of Haryana' decided on 07.02.2022; CRM-
M-19407-2022 titled as 'Sidak Singh Sandhu Vs. U.T. Chandigarh
and another' decided on 27.07.2022 and judgment of Madhya Pradesh
High Court passed in Writ Appeal No.888 of 2013 in Writ Petition
No.7984 of 2011 titled as 'State of Madhya Pradesh and another Vs.
Jyotiraditya Scindia' decided on 07.02.2014
On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the
2 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 19-11-2022 06:52:12 :::
CRM-M-47346-2022 (O&M) -3-
present petition and submits that cognizable offence is duly made out
and that the FIR was registered on a complaint made by the Police
Officer.
Gursewak Singh And Others vs State Of Ut Chandigarh And Others on 5 January, 2023
In the case of Jiwan Kumar vs. State of Punjab and others: 2009
(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 415, a Coordinate Bench of this Court has held as
5 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 07-01-2023 23:22:07 :::
CRM-M-38831-2022 -6-
under:
Bhagwant Kishore vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 17 February, 2023
Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that as per
the provision of Section 195 Cr.P.C., with regard to the offence under
Section 211 IPC, the complaint was required to be submitted in writing by
the Court or the officer of the Court and not by the SHO, non-compliance
whereof would render the proceedings void ab initio. He places reliance on
the judgments of Hon'ble The Supreme Court in C. Muniappan and others
vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2010 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 268, and of this Court
in Jiwan Kumar vs. State of Punjab and others, 2009 (1) RCR (Criminal)
Euro International School And Another vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 1 August, 2023
Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh' (supra) but in the present case, the FIR
cannot sustain because of there being no legal order which could be said to
have been violated by the petitioners. In the considered opinion of this Court,
the mere registration of the FIRs in question was a total abuse and misuse of
the process of law. The authorities, if at all, could have taken action under the
provisions of the 1995 Act and 2003 Rules, referred to in the preceding
21 of 22
::: Downloaded on - 02-08-2023 12:38:09 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:098641
CRM-M-30363-2018 -22-
CRM-M-30451-2018 2023:PHHC:098641
paragraphs, and there was absolutely no occasion to get FIRs registered on
account of violation of Rule 134A of the 2003 Rules. Strangely enough,
though the same also would have been illegal, the FIRs also do not mention
violation of the order passed under Section 144 Cr.P.C. and only mention
violation of the provisions of Rule 134A of the 2003 Rules.
Pappan Yadav @ Shatrughan Singh Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 23 January, 2020
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Trial
Court has not considered the provision of Section 195(1)(a)(i) of
the Cr.P.C wherein there is specific bar against taking
cognizance under Section 188 of the IPC by the Trial Court
without cognizance by public servant. It is submitted that the
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
2
M.Cr.C. No. 872/2018
(PAPPAN YADAV @ SHATRUGHAN SINGH & OTHERS VS THE STATE OF M.P.)
Police has registered the FIR under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C for
offence punishable under Section 188 of the IPC upon which
learned Trial Court has taken cognizance and framed the charges
and thereafter the matter is pending for recording the evidence.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dated
05/12/2017 learned Judicial Magistrate First Class has considered
the charge-sheet and has over-ruled the objection raised by the
petitioners to the effect that without filing complaint cognizance
could not have been taken by the Magistrate under Section 195 of
the Cr.P.C and that Police was not authorized to register the case
against the petitioners for offence under Sections 188 of the IPC
and then submit the report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C.
Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Division Bench
of High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Jiwan
Kumar Vs State of Punjab and others decided on 18/03/2008
reported in 2008 CriLJ 3576 (2008) 2 PLR 675, paragraphs 10
and 11 are reproduced as under :-
Munish Kumar Dhawan And Another vs State Of Ut Chandigarh on 3 April, 2024
9. Similar was also the observation of a Division Bench of
this Court in Jiwan Kumar's case (supra). Relevant para from this
judgment is reproduced here under:
Subhash And Ors vs State Of Haryana on 4 February, 2019
In support
of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in
Jiwan Kumar v. State of Punjab and others 2009(1) RCR (Criminal)
Pritam Singh vs State Of Punjab on 22 December, 2022
Similar question came up for hearing before Division
Bench of this Court in case Jiwan Kumar vs. State of Punjab &
others, 2009(1)RCR (Criminal) 415 and it was categorically observed
2 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 23-12-2022 15:10:34 :::
3
CRM-M-9551 of 2022
that it would not be open to the police to register a case against the
offender for offence under Section 188 IPC and then to submit a report
under Section 173 Cr.P.C. to the concerned court. Here it would be
appropriate to reproduce the relevant paragraph of above referred
judgment which reads as under:-