Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 305 (RAJ)

Rajendra Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, Through PP

2019-01-24

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to assail the order dated 12.11.2018 passed by the Additional Session Judge (Women Atrocities Cases) No. 1, Kota whereby the said court framed charge against the petitioner for offence under Section 211 IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the trial court gravely erred to frame charge for offence under Section 211 IPC against the petitioner upon the complaint filed by the investigating officer. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner had lodged FIR against the complainant for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in the said FIR lodged by the petitioner, compromise was arrived between the parties and the investigating officer submitted Final Report in negative form. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the report submitted by the investigating agency on the basis of compromise was accepted by the court of Magistrate. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the investigating officer gravely erred to file a charge-sheet against the petitioner for offence under Section 211 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Section 195 Cr.P.C. to contend that the complaint for prosecution of petitioner for offence under Section 211 IPC can only be filed by the concerned court and SHO of concerned Police Station cannot file the complaint for offence under Section 211 IPC. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Section 195 Cr.P.C. reads as under:- 195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Section 195 Cr.P.C. reads as under:- 195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence. (1) No Court shall take cognizance-(a)(i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860 ), or (ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence, or (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate; (b)(i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860 ), 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 proceeding in any Court, or (ii) of any offence described in section 463, or punishable under section 471, section 475 or section 476, of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, or (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in sub- clause (i) or sub- clause (ii), except on the complaint in writing of that Court, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate. (2) Where a complaint has been made by a public servant under clause (a) of sub- section (1) any authority to which he is administratively subordinate may order the withdrawal of the complaint and send a copy of such order to the Court; and upon its receipt by the Court, no further proceedings shall be taken on the complaint: Provided that no such withdrawal shall be ordered if the trial in the Court of first instance has been concluded. (3) In clause (b) of sub- section (1), 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. (3) In clause (b) of sub- section (1), 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. (4) For the purposes of clause (b) of sub- section (1), a Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the appealable decrees or sentences of such former Court, or in the case of a Civil Court from whose decrees no appeal ordinarily lies, to the principal Court having ordinary original civil jurisdiction within whose local jurisdiction such Civil Court in situate: Provided that- (a) where appeals lie to more than one Court, the Appellate Court of inferior jurisdiction shall be the Court to which such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate; (b) where appeals lie to a Civil and also to a Revenue Court, such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Civil or Revenue Court according to the nature of the case or proceeding in connection with which the offence is alleged to have been committed. 5. A perusal of Section 195(1)(b)(i) Cr.P.C. makes it explicitly clear that for prosecution of offence under Section 211 IPC, proceedings are to be initiated upon a complaint in writing by the court in relation to which the said offence was committed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly submitted that in the present case, no inquiry under Section 340 Cr.P.C. was held by any court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that even the court opting to file complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C. is bound to hold an inquiry under Section 340 Cr.P.C. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor could not controvert the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner. 8. Consequently, the present petition is accepted and the charge framed against the petitioner under Section 211 IPC is quashed with the observation that the concerned court qua which offence was committed if after holding an inquiry comes to conclusion that it is expedient in the interest of justice to prosecute the petitioner, it may file a complaint taking into account Section 195 Cr.P.C.