Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 92 (JK)

Manohar Singh v. State

2004-04-05

Y.P.NARGOTRA

body2004
If a false document is filed in the proceedings of a case whether the court is entitled to lodge a report with the police for registration of an FIR or for that matter it has to proceed lodge a complaint U/S 195, read with sec.476 Cr.P.C; is the question arising for consideration in this petition U/S 561-A Cr.PC. 2. A murder trial is being conducted in the court of learned Principal Sessions Judge Jammu in case entitled State vs Balwant Singh and others in which one of the accused is Gandharab Singh. Gandharab Singh is in custody as under trial prisoner. On his behalf an application was filed for grant of bail by the petitioner herein, Manohar Singh, brother of the accused. Bail was sought on the ground that wife of the accused had sustained injury in consequence of which she stood admitted in the hospital at Chandigarh. In support or the application a medical certificate was also filed. The prosecution disputed the genuineness of the certificate during tile course of hearing of application and a communication was filed for indicating that the certificate was false. Learned Sessions Judge taking note of the falsity of the certificate rejected the bail application by his order-dated 2.5.2003. The prosecution filed un application before the trial court seeking registration of a case against the persons involved in submission and preparation of fake certificate in the said bail application. Learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 3.5.2003 allowed tile prayer of the prosecution and direction for transmission of the petition in original to S.S.P. Crime Branch Jammu for registration of case and investigation along with Photostat copies of the reports placed on the file, Photostat copy of the report attested on 29.4 .2003, Photostat copy of the application moved by the accused Gandharab Singh through his brother Manohar Singh and Photostat copy of the confidential report received from the concerned authority. This order passed by the Sessions Judge is the subject matter of challenge in this petition. 3. Undisputedly on the motion of the learned Pr. Session Judge an FIR has been registered by the Crime Branch for commission of offences u/s 420,468,193,467,471 and 120-B RPC. The contention of Mr. This order passed by the Sessions Judge is the subject matter of challenge in this petition. 3. Undisputedly on the motion of the learned Pr. Session Judge an FIR has been registered by the Crime Branch for commission of offences u/s 420,468,193,467,471 and 120-B RPC. The contention of Mr. Goni learned counsel for the petitioner is that when the learned Sessions Judge formulated an opinion that the document filed with the bail application was false he ought to have followed the procedure prescribed in sections 195 & 476 Cr.PC and thereafler he should have made a complaint against the accused for their trial instead of asking for lodging the FIR. In Support of his contention he relies upon AIR 1983 SC 1053. 4. Per contra the contention of Mr. Sethi, learned counsel for the respondents is that there is no bar created in Criminal Procedure Code prohibiting lodging of FIR at the instance of the court. 5. I have considered the respective contentions of learned counsel for the parties and in my view there is no merit in the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Sec.195 (l)(b) Cr.P.C. provides that no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the same Code, namely sections 193, 194, 195, 196, 199, 200, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211 and 228 when such offence is alleged to have been committed in or in relation to any proceeding in any court except on the complaint in writing of such court or of some other court to which such court is subordinate. Sec. 195 thus creates a bur upon jurisdiction of a criminal court to take cognizance of the offences mentioned in the section except upon n complaint made in writing by the court before whom in a proceeding any of such offences is alleged to have been committed or by the court which is superior to such court Sec. 476 Cr..P.C. provides the procedure to be followed for making the complaint referred to in Sec. 195. Section 195 Cr.P.C has no application where an accused is alleged lo have committed the other offences not mentioned in the section. What is prohibited is the taking of the cognizance by the court upon any of the offences mentioned in the section. Section 195 Cr.P.C has no application where an accused is alleged lo have committed the other offences not mentioned in the section. What is prohibited is the taking of the cognizance by the court upon any of the offences mentioned in the section. The question of taking cognizance upon any of such offences docs not arise at this stage. The case has been registered against the accused/petitioner for commission of various offences out of which only the offence U/S 193 RPC falls within the ambit of sec. 195 (l)(b). The offences alleged to have been committed are yet to be investigated. There is nothing in sec. 195 or 476 to indicate that investigation by the police is burred. There is no bar in law for sending a case to the police for registration of an FIR investigation into the offences, which are alleged, to have been committed by a person in relation to the proceedings pending before the court. The authority relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner has no application to issue in hand. 7. Therefore, there, is no merit in the petition of the petitioner, which is accordingly dismissed. The interim direction regarding not arresting the accused in the FIR registered is hereby vacated. Record of the trial court along with copy of this order be transmitted back.