KARNAIL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE statutory power of the police to investigate the cognazable offences under Section 463. 471, 475 and 476 of the Penal Code vis-avis the bar under Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) of the Cr. p. C. with regard to the cognizance thereof by a Court, has ultimately come to be the significant question in this reference.

(2.) KARNAIL Singh petitioner and another had instituted a civil suit on 25th of Sept. 1980, against his brother Jarnail Singh and others seeking a declaration to the effect that they were owners in possession of the said land and for a permanent injunction against the defendants from interfering with their possession. This claim was rested primarily on a will allegedly executed on the 27th April, 1977 by the petitioner's father Hari Singh. During the pendency of the said suit Jarnail Singh aforesaid who was a defendant therein made an application before the Senior Superintendent of police, Amritsar, alleging that the will purporting to be dated the 27th April, 1977, relied upon by the petitioner had been desigendly forged and thereby the petitioner had committed the offence of cheating and forgery. On the basis of the said application a case under Sections 420, 467 and, 471 of the Penal Code was registered at Police Station, Majitha, and the investigation thereof was commenced.

(3.) THE petitioner thereafter preferred the present petition under Section 482 of the Cr. p. C. 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) seeking to quash the first information report against him and the investigation thereunder. It is the admitted position that no charge-sheet or complaint had as yet been filed in any Court of law. When the matter came up originally before S. S. Kang J. , reliance on behalf of the petitioner was placed on a single Bench judgment in Sheela Devi v. State of Punjab 1979 Chand LR (Cri) 195 (P and H) Doubting the correctness of its ratio in view of the earlier Supreme Court judgments and apparently taking the view that the criminal miscellaneous petition was premature and incompetent because the matter was as yet merely at the investigative stage and no final report had been filed in any Court of law whatsoever, the learned single Judge referred the matter t0 a larger Bench for an authoritative decision.