| Case Name : | Mahesh Chand Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 2009 |
| Equivalent Citation: | 15 SCC 519 |
| Date Of Judgement : | 28/08/2009 |
| Court : | Supreme Court Of India |
| Case No. : | Criminal Appeal No. 1640 of 2009 |
| Case Type : | Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction |
| Petitioner : | Mahesh Chand Sharma |
| Respondent : | State of U.P. & Ors. |
| Bench : | Justice V.S. Sirpurkar, Justice Deepak Verma |
| Referred : | Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Section 420, 467, 471 & 120-B of the Indian Penal Code Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure |
FACTS
The appellant filed a protest petition in the Court of ACJM, Mathura on 19- 03-2005, feeling aggrieved by the final report of the police.
The learned Magistrate treated the petition as a complaint and fixed the case for recording of the appellant statement.
During the pendency of the revision, the appellant protest petition was dismissed by default by the learned Magistrate. The accused then filed a petition under Section 482 Crpc in the High Court, seeking the quashing of the cognizance thereof.
The appellant challenged the order of quashment on various grounds.
ISSUE
Whether the proceedings of the case should be quashed in view of the bar of Section 195 Crpc ?
DECISION
The present application under Section 482 Crpc is allowed, and the process proceedings of the case should be quashed in view of the bar of Section 195 Crpc.
However, it will be open to the complainant Opposite Party 2 to move an application before the court concerned for taking action against the accused persons in accordance with the provisions of Section 340 Crpc.
REASONING
Section 195 Crpc restricts the general powers of the Magistrate, and the general right of a person to move the court with a complaint is to that extent curtailed. The clause in question is capable of two
interpretations, but the narrower interpretation is chosen to prevent the protection afford by the provision
from being reduced to a vanishing point, defeating the object of the enactment.
Section 195 Crpc deals with the three distinct categories of offences relating to contempt of lawful authority of public servants, offences against public justice, and offences relating to documents given in evidence. Clause (b)(i) refers to offences in Chapter XI IPC, which is headed as ‘Of False Evidence and Offences Against Public Justice’. The situation where an offence as enumerated in this clause has already been committed earlier and later on the document is produced or given in evidence in court does not
appear to be in tune with clause (a)(i) & (b)(i) & consequently with the scheme of Section 195 Crpc. The order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained in law.
The learned Single Judge completely lost sight of the fact that the offence committed by the accused in collusion with the Area Lekhpal was not in relation to court proceedings. The learned Single Judge further committed a gross error in resorting to Section 340 Crpc, as provisions of the said section can be invoked only when it is established that the offence of forgery had already been
committed. The accused had failed to
obtain any relief under Section 482 Crpc.
RESULT
The appeal is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside and quashed.
written by jhanvi sahu intern under legal vidhiya
