Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.26 seconds)Section 195 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 173 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Jiwan Kumar vs State Of Punjab And Others on 16 July, 2012
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 9 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.
Surjit Singh & Ors vs Balbir Singh on 29 February, 1996
â28. Section 195(a)(i) Cr. P.C. bars the court from
taking cognizance of any offence punishable under
Section 188 IPC or abetment or attempt to commit the
same, unless, there is a written complaint by the public
servant concerned for contempt of his lawful order. The
object of this provision is to provide for a particular
procedure in a case of contempt of the lawful authority of
the public servant. The court lacks competence to take
cognizance in certain types of offences enumerated
therein. The legislative intent behind such a provision has
been that an individual should not face criminal
prosecution instituted upon insufficient grounds by
persons actuated by malice, ill-will or frivolity of
disposition and to save the time of the criminal courts
being wasted by endless prosecutions. This provision has
been carved out as an exception to the general rule
contained under Section 190 Cr. P.C. that any person can
set the law in motion by making a complaint, as it
prohibits the court from taking cognizance of certain
offences until and unless a complaint has been made by
some particular authority or person. Other provisions in
the Cr. P.C. like sections 196 and 198 do not lay down any
rule of procedure, rather, they only create a bar that
unless some requirements are complied with, the court
shall not take cognizance of an offence described in those
Sections. (vide Govind Mehta v. The State of Bihar, AIR
1.97.1 SC 1708; Patel Laljibhai Somabhai v. The State of
Gujarat, AIR 1971 SC 1935; Surjit Singh and Ors. v. Balbir
Singh, (1996) 3 SCC 533 : (AIR 1996 SC 1592 : 1996 AIR
SCW 1850); State of Punjab v. Raj Singh and Anr., (1998) 2
SCC 391 : (AIR 1998 SC 768 : 1998 AIR SCW 483); K.
Vengadachalam v. K.C. Palanisamy and Ors., (2005) 7 SCC
352; and Iqbal Singh Marwah and Anr. v. Meenakshi
Marwah and Anr., AIR 2005 SC 2119) : (2005 AIR SCW
1929)
State Of Punjab vs Raj Singh And Anr on 16 January, 1998
â28. Section 195(a)(i) Cr. P.C. bars the court from
taking cognizance of any offence punishable under
Section 188 IPC or abetment or attempt to commit the
same, unless, there is a written complaint by the public
servant concerned for contempt of his lawful order. The
object of this provision is to provide for a particular
procedure in a case of contempt of the lawful authority of
the public servant. The court lacks competence to take
cognizance in certain types of offences enumerated
therein. The legislative intent behind such a provision has
been that an individual should not face criminal
prosecution instituted upon insufficient grounds by
persons actuated by malice, ill-will or frivolity of
disposition and to save the time of the criminal courts
being wasted by endless prosecutions. This provision has
been carved out as an exception to the general rule
contained under Section 190 Cr. P.C. that any person can
set the law in motion by making a complaint, as it
prohibits the court from taking cognizance of certain
offences until and unless a complaint has been made by
some particular authority or person. Other provisions in
the Cr. P.C. like sections 196 and 198 do not lay down any
rule of procedure, rather, they only create a bar that
unless some requirements are complied with, the court
shall not take cognizance of an offence described in those
Sections. (vide Govind Mehta v. The State of Bihar, AIR
1.97.1 SC 1708; Patel Laljibhai Somabhai v. The State of
Gujarat, AIR 1971 SC 1935; Surjit Singh and Ors. v. Balbir
Singh, (1996) 3 SCC 533 : (AIR 1996 SC 1592 : 1996 AIR
SCW 1850); State of Punjab v. Raj Singh and Anr., (1998) 2
SCC 391 : (AIR 1998 SC 768 : 1998 AIR SCW 483); K.
Vengadachalam v. K.C. Palanisamy and Ors., (2005) 7 SCC
352; and Iqbal Singh Marwah and Anr. v. Meenakshi
Marwah and Anr., AIR 2005 SC 2119) : (2005 AIR SCW
1929)
Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr vs Meenakshi Marwah & Anr on 11 March, 2005
â28. Section 195(a)(i) Cr. P.C. bars the court from
taking cognizance of any offence punishable under
Section 188 IPC or abetment or attempt to commit the
same, unless, there is a written complaint by the public
servant concerned for contempt of his lawful order. The
object of this provision is to provide for a particular
procedure in a case of contempt of the lawful authority of
the public servant. The court lacks competence to take
cognizance in certain types of offences enumerated
therein. The legislative intent behind such a provision has
been that an individual should not face criminal
prosecution instituted upon insufficient grounds by
persons actuated by malice, ill-will or frivolity of
disposition and to save the time of the criminal courts
being wasted by endless prosecutions. This provision has
been carved out as an exception to the general rule
contained under Section 190 Cr. P.C. that any person can
set the law in motion by making a complaint, as it
prohibits the court from taking cognizance of certain
offences until and unless a complaint has been made by
some particular authority or person. Other provisions in
the Cr. P.C. like sections 196 and 198 do not lay down any
rule of procedure, rather, they only create a bar that
unless some requirements are complied with, the court
shall not take cognizance of an offence described in those
Sections. (vide Govind Mehta v. The State of Bihar, AIR
1.97.1 SC 1708; Patel Laljibhai Somabhai v. The State of
Gujarat, AIR 1971 SC 1935; Surjit Singh and Ors. v. Balbir
Singh, (1996) 3 SCC 533 : (AIR 1996 SC 1592 : 1996 AIR
SCW 1850); State of Punjab v. Raj Singh and Anr., (1998) 2
SCC 391 : (AIR 1998 SC 768 : 1998 AIR SCW 483); K.
Vengadachalam v. K.C. Palanisamy and Ors., (2005) 7 SCC
352; and Iqbal Singh Marwah and Anr. v. Meenakshi
Marwah and Anr., AIR 2005 SC 2119) : (2005 AIR SCW
1929)