Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1287 (PNJ)

Deep Chand v. State Of Haryana

2001-11-20

R.C.KATHURIA

body2001
Judgment R.C.Kathuria, J. 1. In this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as `the Code), petitioners Deep Chand and Ram Kishan seek quashing of First Information Report No. 755 date 11.7.1992 registered against them and others under Sections 419/420/467/471/120-B, Indian Penal Code at Police Station City, Sonepat. The aforesaid case was registered on the written report made by the Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat. It was stated therein that Trilok Chand son of Chandgi Ram resident of Village Aterna, Tehsil and District Sonepat, had made a complaint dated 5.2.1992 to Tehsildar, Ganaur stating that Krishan Dutt son of Goverdhan and Suraj Bhan son of Deep Chand residents of Village Umedgarh had obtained a decree form Civil Court by producing fictitious persons in order to cause loss to his (Trilok Chands) brothers. These allegations were enquired into by Tehsildar, Ganaur and thereafter he submitted a report vide his Memo. No. 995/R dated 16.3.1992 in which he had concluded that, in fact, the decree had been obtained by producing fictitious persons in the Civil Court. The case was still under investigation when the present petition was filed. 2. Notice of this petition was given to the State. In reply, it has been stated that the case was rightly registered against the petitioners on the basis of enquiry made by Tehsildar, Ganaur, on the complaint of Trilok Chand (complainant). It was also pointed out that First Information Report in question had been quashed by this Court qua accused Krishan Dutt and Suraj Bhan and the proceedings were pending only against the petitioners. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted before me that as fictitious persons were produced before the Court during the pendency of the suit in the Civil Court and a decree was obtained by accused Krishan Dutt and Suraj Bhan, it was only that Court which was competent to get the case registered against the petitioners and the bar of the provisions of Section 195 of the Code would apply in this case. This submission has been controverted from the side of the respondent. 5. This submission has been controverted from the side of the respondent. 5. After taking into account the respective stands of the parties, I am of the considered view that the petition deserves to be rejected on the short ground that the matter is still under investigation and the petitioners have no right to get the First Information Report quashed at this stage. It is well-settled that statutory power of the police to investigate the crime is not, in any way, controlled or circumscribed by the provisions of Section 195 of the Code. Investigation by the police cannot be equated with the cognizance taken by a Magistrate because the stage of taking cognizance under Section 190 of the Code would arise when a police report or a complaint is made in respect of the offences committed. Therefore, after the registration of the case, the police is not precluded from investigating the allegations made and collecting evidence or material in support thereof. The question raised in this petition stands squarely settled by the Apex Court in case State of Punjab v. Raj Singh, 1998(1) RCR(Criminal) 576 (SC) wherein it was observed as under :- "We are unable to sustain the impugned order of the High Court quashing the F.I.R. lodged against the respondents alleging commission of offences under Sections 419, 420, 467 and 469 I.P.C. by them in course of the proceeding of a civil suit, on the ground that Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. prohibited entertainment of and investigation into the same by the police. From a plain reading of Section 195 Cr.P.C. it is manifest that it comes into operation at the stage when the Court intends to take cognizance of an offence under Section 190(1) Cr.P.C., and it has nothing to do with the statutry power of the police to investigate into an F.I.R. which disclosed a cognizable offence, in accordance with Chapter XII of the Code even if the offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in Court. In other words, the statutory power of the police to investigate under the Code is not in any way controlled or circumscribed by Section 195 Cr.P.C. It is of course true that upon the charge-sheet (challan), if any filed on completion of the investigation into such an offence the Court would not be competent to take congnizance thereof in view of the embargo of Section 195 (1) (b) Cr.P.C., but nothing therein deters the Court from filing a complaint for the offence on the basis of the F.I.R. (filed by the aggrieved private party) and the materials collected during investigation, provided it forms the requisite opinion and follows the procedure laid down in Section 340 Cr.P.C. The judgement of this Corut in Gopal Krishna Menon and Another v. D. Raja Reddy, 1983(2) RCR(Crl.) 354 : AIR 1983 SC 1053, on which the Court relied, has no manner of application to the facts of the instant case for there cognizance was taken on a private complaint even though the offence of forgery was committed in repsect of a money receipt produced in the Civil Court and hence it was held that the Court could not take cognizance on such a complaint in view of Section 195 Cr.P.C." For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.