Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Vijay Arjun Patil, filed a criminal application under Section 482 CrPC challenging an order passed by the Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Shahada, in Crime No. 25/2011. The applicant was the original complainant in a private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against respondent No.2, Priyanka Mansukhalal Shah. During those proceedings, respondent No.3, Rajendra Baburao Shekatkar, stood surety for respondent No.2 by producing a revenue record (assessment extract No. 8 of village Kone) to show ownership of landed property. The applicant alleged that after inquiry, he discovered that the property shown in the assessment extract was not owned by respondent No.3 and that the document was falsely prepared. He also alleged that respondent No.3 had used similar false records in another case. The applicant filed a complaint alleging offences under Sections 193, 196, 199, 200, 465, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Judicial Magistrate referred the complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC. During investigation, respondent No.2 was arrested and produced before the Magistrate with a remand report. The Magistrate rejected the remand report and virtually quashed the FIR by discharging respondents No.2 and 3, holding that cognizance of such offences could only be taken on a complaint by the court or its officer under Section 195 CrPC. The applicant challenged this order. The High Court held that the Magistrate's order was without jurisdiction. It observed that Section 195 CrPC does not bar investigation or cognizance when the forgery is of a document not produced in court but used as surety, and the complaint is by a private person. The court noted that the Magistrate had not considered the police report under Section 173 CrPC and had effectively quashed the FIR without following proper procedure. The High Court allowed the application, set aside the Magistrate's order, and directed the Magistrate to proceed with the case in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 482 - Inherent Powers - Quashing of FIR - Challenge to order of Magistrate rejecting remand report and discharging accused - Held that the Magistrate's order was without jurisdiction as it virtually quashed the FIR without following procedure under Section 173 CrPC (Paras 3-5). B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 195 - Bar on Taking Cognizance - Offences under Sections 193, 196, 199, 200, 465, 468, 471 IPC - Held that Section 195 CrPC does not bar investigation or cognizance when the forgery is of a document not produced in court but used as surety, and the complaint is by a private person (Paras 5-6). C) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Dishonour of Cheque - Surety Documents - Alleged fabrication of revenue records to stand surety - Held that such allegations constitute offences under IPC and can be investigated without complaint by court (Paras 4-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Judicial Magistrate (First Class) was justified in rejecting the police remand report and virtually quashing the FIR by discharging the accused under Section 195 CrPC, and whether the Magistrate's order was without jurisdiction.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the application, set aside the order of the Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Shahada dated 25/02/2011, and directed the Magistrate to proceed with the case in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Section 195 CrPC does not bar investigation or cognizance of offences under Sections 193
- 196
- 199
- 200
- 465
- 468
- 471 IPC when the forgery is of a document not produced in court but used as surety
- and the complaint is by a private person
- Magistrate cannot discharge accused without considering police report under Section 173 CrPC
- Order under Section 156(3) CrPC does not amount to taking cognizance.
