Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Anthony Roque D'Souza, filed a Criminal Writ Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.178/2023 registered at Mapusa Police Station on 11.09.2023. The FIR was lodged by respondent no.3, Merwyn Gerard Miranda, alleging offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, and 34 IPC. The dispute arose from mutation proceedings before the Revenue Court regarding property rights. The petitioner contended that the allegations had a predominantly civil profile and that the FIR alleged forgery by unknown persons but sought to prosecute him under Section 34 IPC, which was impermissible. The primary ground was that the offences alleged under Sections 193-195 IPC were in relation to proceedings before a Revenue Court, and therefore, under Section 195(1)(b)(i) Cr.P.C., no court could take cognizance except on the complaint in writing of that court. The petitioner argued that the FIR sought to circumvent this statutory bar. The State and respondent no.3 opposed the petition, arguing that the bar under Section 195 Cr.P.C. did not apply at the stage of investigation and that the FIR disclosed cognizable offences. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that the allegations in the FIR clearly pertained to proceedings before the Revenue Court and that the offences under Sections 193-195 IPC were attracted. Relying on the law laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335), particularly paragraph 102(6), the court found that the FIR was an abuse of process and that the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(i) Cr.P.C. was a complete bar to the prosecution. The court quashed the FIR and all proceedings arising therefrom.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 195(1)(b)(i) - Bar on Cognizance - Offences under Sections 193-195 IPC committed in relation to proceedings before a Revenue Court cannot be taken cognizance of except on the complaint in writing of that Court. The FIR alleging forgery of documents in connection with mutation proceedings before the Revenue Court is barred by Section 195(1)(b)(i) Cr.P.C. and is quashed. (Paras 3, 10-12) B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 482 - Inherent Powers - Quashing of FIR - Where the allegations in the FIR disclose offences under Sections 193-195 IPC in relation to proceedings before a Revenue Court, the FIR is an abuse of process and liable to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice. (Paras 10-12) C) Indian Penal Code - Section 34 - Common Intention - Forgery by Unknown Persons - The FIR alleges forgery by unknown persons but seeks to prosecute the petitioner under Section 34 IPC without specifying his role or common intention. Such invocation of Section 34 is impermissible and amounts to abuse of process. (Para 3) D) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 195(1)(b)(i) - Scope - The bar under Section 195(1)(b)(i) applies to offences under Sections 193-195 IPC committed in relation to proceedings before any court of justice, including a Revenue Court. The FIR cannot circumvent this bar by registering a case directly with the police. (Paras 3, 10-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an FIR alleging forgery of documents in relation to proceedings before a Revenue Court can be quashed on the ground that it violates the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(i) Cr.P.C. and amounts to an abuse of process.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition and quashed FIR No.178/2023 dated 11.09.2023 registered at Mapusa Police Station and all proceedings arising therefrom.
Law Points
- Section 195(1)(b)(i) Cr.P.C. bars cognizance of offences under Sections 193-195 IPC when committed in relation to proceedings before a court of justice
- unless on complaint of that court
- FIR cannot circumvent this bar
- civil profile of dispute does not automatically justify quashing but is a relevant factor
- Section 34 IPC cannot be used to prosecute for forgery by unknown persons without specific allegations of common intention.
