RAJESHWAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application under Section 482. Cr. P.C. has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash an order dated 10-61998 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate; Robertsganj. District Sonebhadra in Criminal Case No. 4 of 1994, which emerged out of case. Crime No. 306 of 1993 under Sections 467/468/471/420, I.P.C., P.S. Chopan, District Sonebhadra. The impugned order indicates that in the aforementioned case, after investigation, a final report was submitted but the court had refused to act upon the final report. The court rather perused the statements under Section 161, Cr. P.C. anti had directed further investigation. Therefore a report was submitted that investigation was complete but arrest of the accused persons was awaited. These accused persons were, however, not traceable despite attempts to arrest them in the recorded address. Accordingly, on the prayer of the Investigating Officer, the court had directed issuance of process under Section 82, Cr. P.C. against the accused persons and this part of the order has aggrieved the present applicants.

(2.) Three points were raised at the time of arguments by the learned counsel for the applicants. Appearance was made on behalf of the complainant and the points were duly answered. It was stated by the petitioner that the Magistrate could not after submission of a final report, direct a further investigation. This submission, in my view, is untenable on the face of the text of the law, as stated in Section 173(8), Cr. P.C. Police is required to submit a report under Section 173(2), Cr. P.C. after completion of investigation. This report could either be a charge-sheet or a final report. Section 173(8) states that Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect or an offence after a report under Sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed A final report and in that sense a charge-sheet also is merely an opinion of the Investigating Officer based on the materials in the case Diary and the court is not bound to accept the opinion and if investigation was not done properly. the court must have the power to direct a further investigation. There is, therefore, no impropriety so far giving a direction of further investigation after submission of final report. The case law reported in 1997 Cr. L.J. 779 has no application on the facts of the present case.

(3.) The second point that has been raised by the applicants relies to an interpretation of Section 195. Cr. P.C. The learned counsel proposed to say that without a complaint from I the Revenue Court where the allegedly forged documents were presented, a prosecution could not have been launched. The learned counsel relied on several decisions in this regard. In the case of Surjit Singh and others v. Balbir Singh, a three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court held that for taking cognizance of an offence the document, the foundation for forgery, if produced before the court Or given in evidence, the bar of taking cognizance under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) gets attracted and the criminal Court is prohibited to take cognizance of offence unless a complaint in writing is filed as per the procedure prescribed under Section 340 of the Code. In the concerned case, however, the document was filed in court long after cognizance for the offence was taken. Reliance was also placed on another decision of the Supreme Court, recorded by the two Judges, as reported in 1983 S.C.C. (Cri) 822. This also speaks of Cognizance of offences mentioned in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and states that cognizance could not be taken in the absence of written complaint by the court concerned. The third case law on this point is a decision by the Allahabad High Court as reported in 1982 (19) A.C.C. 34 It was observed herein by a Division Bench of this High Court that the bar of cognizance is applicable whether or not offences mentioned in Section 195, Cr. P.C. are committed prior to or after initiation of the proceedings. This case law, in my view, stands clarified in the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Surjit Singhs case (supra).