| Case Name : | State of Punjab Vs. Brij Lal Palta |
| Equivalent Citation : | (1969)1 SCR 853; AIR 1969 SC 355 |
| Date of Judgement : | 26 August 1968 |
| Court : | Supreme Court of India |
| Case No. : | Criminal Appeal no. 173 of 1966 |
| Case type : | Appeal by special leave |
| Petitioner : | State of Punjab |
| Respondent : | Brij Lal Palta |
| Bench : | S.M. Sikri, R.S. Bachawat, A.N. Grover |
| Referred : | s. 34, 120(B), 211, 193, 109, 381, 385, 182 of I.P.C. , S. 173, 561-A OF Cr.P.C. |
FACTS OF THE CASE :
The respondent filed a case against Shibu Ram Mittal, Director of Shiv General Finance (P)Ltd., New Delhi, and others who were related with said company under s. 420,34,120-B of I.P.C. alleging that he was induced by the director to part with a sum of Rs. 25,000/- for the purchase of property in Delhi with an assurance that the property will yield profit when bought. But he pressed for a refund as nothing was purchased by him. On October 5, 1963 , he only got 1500/- as part payment and when he pressed for the remaining amount of Rs.23,500/-, he was told that no amount had ever been entrusted by him to the director and all his documents were forged.
A report was filed against him under s.173 of Cr.P.C. by Shri Sita Ram , District Inspector, Bhatinda stating that the report filed by him in the FIR was false and it’s him and one Hukam Chand instead who was guilty of many offences including forgery. So, a charge sheet was filed against them under s. 408,467,474,193,385,109,211 and 182 of I.P.C.
On the other hand, on October 16,1963, respondent filed a complaint before Magistrate, First class at Faridkot against the director and others of the said company putting the same allegations as FIR was registered and also filed a petition under s.561-A of Cr.P.C. before the High Court for quashing the proceedings pending against him.
CONTENTIONS OF PETITIONER :
The learned counsel for the state contended that no warrant was expressed or passed by the High court on the issue raised that once the FIR had been registered, it had to get canceled by the Magistrate under s. 169 or any other s. of Cr.P.C. before a charge sheet could be submitted for the offences committed by the informant himself under s. 182,211 of I.P.C.
CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT :
It was contended that police can’t ask for prosecution as his complaint is still pending before the Magistrate. Respondent filed an affidavit on October 22,1966 stating in para 11 that a complaint instituted by him had been referred to Tehsildar, Faridkot who had power of Magistrate .
RATIO DECIDENDI :
Judgment was authored by A.N. Grover of this case had an appeal by special leave against judgment of High Court of Punjab for quashing the proceeding pending against the respondent. The present case is of type where facts stated in the police report disclosed offence under s.211 I.P.C. The offence under s.182 is distinct from offence under s.211 although the latter is more serious and also includes offences of the former one.
JUDGMENT ;
In this case, the High Court has quashed all the proceedings that include offences other than those offences under S.182,211 and 193 I.P.C. But there were some non-cognizable offences under S.467,471 and 385 I.P.C. There can be no objection to continuing the proceeding related to offences other than covered by S.182,211 and 193 of I.P.C. as a police officer is not debarred from investigating any non-cognizable offence that may arise while investigating any dispute of case.
In the result, appeal is only allowed to the extent that the proceedings in respect of offences other than S.211,182 and 193 shall be continued and proceedings related to such articles shall be quashed.
CONCLUSION :
This case law cleared the fact that the Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence under S.182 in respect of the provisions contained in S. 195(1) (a) of Cr.P.C. but it would certainly become an obstacle or would be circumvented for S.195(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. if proceedings under S.182 continue also if offences disclosed are under S.211 of I.P.C. and the complaint is pending. Hence, no cognizance could be taken under S.211 of I.P.C. by Magistrate for the offence alleged under S.193 I.P.C. having one of the sections also mentioned under S.193(1)(b).
written by Chanchal Garg intern under legal vidhiya
