RAJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SECOND respondent Mukhtiar Kaur and the third respondent Choti Kaur lodged a complaint before the City Police Station, Mansa under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 34 IPC (annexure P-1). They have alleged in this complaint that the petitioners 1 to 3, i.e. Raj Singh, Mal Singh and Punjab Singh filed a regular suit in the Court of Shri G.S. Dhillon and got the judgment and decree against the complainants by misrepresentation and substituting some other ladies in their place. According to the complainants, it is a clear case of forgery and impersonation since they were never served in this case. According to the complaint, the complainants never appeared in the court nor submitted any statement in the court, and the petitioners got some other ladies in place of the complainants and got a decree in respect of the lands of the complainants. Therefore, they had prayed that a case under sections 467, 468, 420, 419 and 34 IPC may be registered against them. The fourth petitioner is said to have identified the impersonators. The police have registered the case under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC.

(2.) THE four petitioners have now come forward with this application under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the said FIR (No. 58 dated 5.8.1996 of Police Station Mansa) on the ground that the police cannot investigate into these offences in view of the provisions contained in section 195(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, as per this Section, no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under any of the sections enumerated therein except in a complaint in writing by the court where such offence is alleged to have been committed or in relation to any proceeding in that Court, or when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, contends that since there is no complaint by the Court concerned, no court can take cognizance of such offences and the police cannot investigate into the offences complained of.

(3.) BUT the contention of the counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 is that only FIR has been lodged and that the Court has not taken cognizance of the same and, therefore, the FIR cannot be quashed. According to the learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 and 3/complainants, what is barred under Section 195 Cr.P.C. is the taking of the cognizance by the Court of the offences emunerated therein and not the registration of the FIR and since no court has taken cognizance, this application to quash the FIR is not maintainable.