Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1032 (PAT)

Kamla Devi v. State Of Bihar

2007-05-31

M.SARAN

body2007
Judgment M.SARAN, J. 1. In this application filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short as the Code) prayer has been made for quashing the Order dated, 25th September, 2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-F.T.C.V. Nalanda in Sessions Trial No. 549/2004, by which he has rejected the prayer for discharge of the Petitioner from the case. There is also prayer for quashing the Order dated, 19th April, 2004 passed in Complaint Case No. 110(c)/2004 corresponding to Tr. No. 523/2004 styled as Sheo Balak Prasad V/s. Smt. Karala Devi by which the learned Magistrate took cognizance under Sec. 211/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the Petitioner and others. 2. It appears that on 5th August, 1996 Petitioner filed a Petition a complaint vide Complaint Case No. 404c/96 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalanda at Biharsharif against opposite Patty No. 2 and others for an occurrence which has allegedly taken place on 4th August, 1996, a copy of which was sent to the police under Sec. 156(3) of the Code for registration and investigation on the basis of which thepolice registered Bihar Sohsarai P.S. Case No. 349/96 under Section 364 of the Penal Code against opposite Party No. 2 and others and after concluding the investigation submitted final form as false. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate accepted the final form as submitted by the police and Ordered that the case will proceed on the basis of protest Petition. It appears that the protest cum Complaint Case No. 797c/2003 was not pressed by the complainant Kamla Devi and accordingly the same was dismissed by Order dated, 5th September, 2003. Thereafter the opposite Party No. 2 Sheo Balak Prasad filed Complaint Case No. 110c/04 in the court of chief judicial Magistrate, Nalanda ai Biharsharif against Kamla Devi and others for offences punishable under Sections 182, 194, 195, 211, 500 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant Sheo Balak Prasad was examined on solemn affirmation and altogether two witnesses were examined on his behalf during inquiry under Sec. 203 of the Code and the learned Magistrate by Order dated, 19th April, 2004 took cognizance under Sec. 211/34 against Smt. Kamla Devi and her husband and Ordered to issue summons against them. The complainant Sheo Balak Prasad was examined on solemn affirmation and altogether two witnesses were examined on his behalf during inquiry under Sec. 203 of the Code and the learned Magistrate by Order dated, 19th April, 2004 took cognizance under Sec. 211/34 against Smt. Kamla Devi and her husband and Ordered to issue summons against them. Thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Session and on transfer it was received in the file of Additional Sessions Judge cum F.T.C.V. Nalanda at Biharsharif. Before the said Court a petition was filed on behalf of the Petitioner to discharge her from the ease on the ground that cognizance taken in the case is barred under Sec. 195(1)(b) of the Code. The learned Additional Sessions Judge heard the matter and by the impugned Order dated, 25th September, 2006 rejected the prayer and posted the case for framing of change. Against the said Order dated, 25th September, 2006 the Petitioner has preferred the present application for quashing before this Court. 3. The submission of learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that cognizance taken in the instant case is bad, illegal and without jurisdiction as it has been provided in Sec. 195(1)(b)(i) of the Code that no Court shall take cognizance of the offence under Sec. 211 of the Penal Code when the offence is alleged to have committed in or relation to, any proceeding in any Court except on a complaint in writing of that Court of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate. As such cognizance for the offence under Sec. 211 of the penal code is barred. His further submission is that as the Court has no jurisdiction to try the case in view of Sec. 195(b)(i) of the code and as such the impugned Order dated, 25th September, 2006 passed by the Trial Court is also illegal. Learned Counsel in support of contention placed reliance on a decision reported in AIR 1979 Supreme Court 777 given in the case of Kamalapati Trivedi V/s. The State of West Bengal. Learned Counsel in support of contention placed reliance on a decision reported in AIR 1979 Supreme Court 777 given in the case of Kamalapati Trivedi V/s. The State of West Bengal. On the other hand, learned Counsel for opposite Party No. 2 supported to the impugned Order and submitted that Sec. 195(1)(b)(i) has no application in this case and in support of his contention, learned Counsel placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court reported in (2005) 4 SCC 370 given in the case of Iqbal Singh Marwah and Anr. V. Meenakshi Marwah and Anr. 4. The question that arises for consideration is whether on the facts of the case the bar against taking cognizance in Sec. 195(1)(b)(i) of the Code is attracted. Section 195(1)(b) of the Code reads as follows: 195(1) No Court shall take cognizance- (a)xxx xxx xxx (b)(i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the IPC, namely Sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both . inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceed in any Court. 5. Sec. 190 of the Code thus lays down the conditions requisite for initiation of proceedings. Sec. 195 of the Code bars taking cognizance of certain offences except on complaint by the authorities specified in the section. In Clause (b) of Sub-sec. 1 mentioned above, the term "Court" means a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court, and includes a Tribunal constituted by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act if declared by that Act to be a Court for the, purposes of this section. Then Section 195(1)(a) says, that the complaint should be by a public servant if the offences complained of are under Sections 172 to 188 IPC. Sub-sec. 1 (b) refers to offence under Sections 193,194,195,196,199,200,205,206,207,209,210,211 and 228 IPC and requires the complaint in writing of the Court before whom the offence is alleged to have been committed in or in relation to any proceeding in any Court. 6. Now the position in the present case is that the Petitioner Kamla Devi filed Complaint case No. 404c/96 is the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalands at Bihaisharif on 5th August, 1996 on the basis of which Bihar Sobsarai RS. 6. Now the position in the present case is that the Petitioner Kamla Devi filed Complaint case No. 404c/96 is the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalands at Bihaisharif on 5th August, 1996 on the basis of which Bihar Sobsarai RS. Case No. 349/96 was registered in which police after investigation submitted final report as false which was accepted by the Court on 21st July, 2003. 7. As protest Petition filed by the informant was pending from before and therefore, the learned Magistrate proceeded further in the matter but as protest petition was not pressed, therefore, the same was dismissed by the learned Magistrate by Order dated, 5th September, 2003. Thereafter opposite Party No. 2 Sheo Balak Prasad who was an accused in the said case on 13th February, 2004 filed Complaint Case No. 110c/2004 against Smt. Kamla Devi and Ors for offences punishable under Sections 211, 182, 194, 195, 500 and 120B IPC in which the learned Magistrate by Order dated, 19th April, 2004 after due inquiry took cognizance under Section 211/34 of the Penal Code. 8. Now the question is whether the Chief Judicial Magistrate acted as a Court when he passed the Order dated, 21st July, 2003 accepting final report submitted by the police. In the decision relied upon by the Petitioner it has been observed by the Hon ble Apex Court in a similarly situated matter that the offence alleged to have been committed in relation to a proceeding in the Court and therefore taking cognizance of it will be against the bar contained in clause (b) of Sec. 195(1) of the Code as there wag no complaint in writing either of the SDJM or the superior Court. In the present case what I find that final report submitted by the Police as false was accepted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and thereafter he posted the matter for hearing on protest petition. As protest petition was not pressed by the informant i.e. the. Petitioner the same was dismissed. On the basis of complaint filed by opposite Party No. 2 the learned Magistrate took cognizance under Sec. 211/34 IPC. Thus in taking cognizance the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate acted in contravention of the bar contained in clause (b) of Section 195(1) of the Code as there was no complaint in writing of the Chief Judicial Magistrate or of any superior Court. Thus in taking cognizance the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate acted in contravention of the bar contained in clause (b) of Section 195(1) of the Code as there was no complaint in writing of the Chief Judicial Magistrate or of any superior Court. The decision relied upon by the Petitioners Counsel thus supports his argument. 9. On the other hand, the decision relied upon by learned Counsel for opposite Party No. 2 i.e. (2005) 4 SCC 370 the matter was different. Forgery in the document was committed before the document was produced in court and in that situation it was held that the bar contained in Sec. 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code would not apply where forgery of the document was committed before the said document was produced in Court. In the aforesaid situation this application is allowed and both the two impugned Orders dated, 25th September, 2006 and 19th April, 2004 are hereby quashed.