RISHI PAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SMT . Chandrawli, complainant made a report asserting that, she is not owner of 67 kanals and 9 marlas of land in village Kalayat, District Kaithal. She is in possession of the same. Petitioner Rishi Pal along with Laxman Dass and Sushil Kumar Goyal got a forged and false decree passed from the Court of Subordinate Judge First Class, Kaithal. The Court was deceived. The complainant had never appeared in the Court and was falsely identified. On 8-3-1991, petitioner in connivance with the Patwari got effected the mutation on basis of the said decree. The petitioner took a tractor on the said land for taking forcible possession. The complainant asserts that she had never appeared in the Court of Subordinate Judge at Kaithal nor thumb marked any statement. In these circumstances, it was claimed that offence punishable under Sections 418/420/ 468/471/120-B of Indian Penal Code have been committed by the petitioner and others. On basis of the above said complaint, First Information Report has been registered at Police Station Kalayet, District Kaithal.

(2.) THE petitioner seeks the quashing of the First Information Report alleging that a valid decree has been, passed in his favour. If the facts alleged by respondent No. 2 complainant are taken as correct, they disclose an offence to have been committed in the proceedings before the Subordinate Judge at Kaithal. Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure restricts the Court from taking cognizance pertaining to such an offence alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in proceeding before the Court. The Court cannot taken cognizance of the same and on this fact, it was prayed that First Information Report be quashed.

(3.) AS is apparent from the recitation of the facts alleged by the petitioner, the sole argument advanced and pressed was that keeping in view the provisions of sub-section (1) to Section 195, the Court cannot take cognizance pertaining to the offences committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in proceeding in any Court and consequently the proceedings as such should be quashed. Sub-section (1) to Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as under:" 195. (1) No Court shall taken cognizance (a) (i) of any offence punishable under Sections 172 of 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 proceedings 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 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.