SAWARARR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, a prayer has been made that F.I.R. No. 54 dated 16.10.1992 registered under Sections 353/186/323 Indian Penal Code, be quashed. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that for the initiation of proceeding under Section 186 Indian Penal Code the procedure prescribed under section 195(1), Criminal Procedure Code, (hereinafter called the Code) which provided for a complaint in writing by the public servant concerned was to be followed and this not having been done, the Court was not competed to take cognizance of the aforesaid offence. He has, in addition, urged that section 353, Indian Penal Code, being an aggravated form of the offence under Section 186, I.P.C., the same:: principle would apply in this case as well. in support of his case, reliance has been placed by the learned counsel on Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab. The provisions of section 195(1) of the Code insofar as relevant are reproduced hereunder No Court shall take cognizance

(2.) It will be seen from a reading of the aforesaid section that the bar imposed is specifically with regard to sections 172 to 188 of the Code and it is, therefore, clear that on the bare reading of the section, the court can take cognizance only on the complaint made in writing to the Court by a public servant with regard to the offence under section 186, Indian Penal Code. That having not been done and the proceedings having been initiated by a First Information Report, the charge under section 186, Indian Penal Code, to my mind, cannot be sustained. The reliance placed by the learned counsel as on the cited case is. therefore fully warranted.

(3.) Mr. Chahal has further argued (as already indicated) that section 353 of the Code being only an aggravated form of the offence under section 186, the same procedure was required to be followed for the initiation of the proceedings. This argument, to my mind, is without any merit, lithe framers of the Code desired that cognizance of the offence under section 353 Indian Penal Code was required to been in the same manner as in the case of section 186, I.P.C., this provision could also have been made in section 195 of the Code.