Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Antonio Xavier Gomes Pereira, Aravin Gomes Pereira, and Rui Gomes Pereira, filed a Criminal Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court at Goa seeking quashing of FIR No.62/2016 registered at Panaji Police Station under Sections 341, 323, 427, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The FIR was lodged by respondent no.3, Percylou Coutinho, alleging that the petitioners wrongfully restrained him and committed other offences. The petitioners contended that the complaint did not disclose the offence of wrongful confinement under Section 341 IPC, which was the only cognizable offence, while the other offences under Sections 323, 427, 504 and 506 IPC were non-cognizable. They argued that without prior sanction from a Magistrate, the police could not investigate non-cognizable offences, and therefore the entire FIR was liable to be quashed. The learned Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that the investigation revealed that the CCTV footage did not provide details and the inmates were not forthcoming, leaving the matter to the court. The respondent no.3's counsel argued that the complaint disclosed wrongful restraint under Section 339 IPC, making out a cognizable offence. The court, after hearing the parties, held that the FIR did not disclose the offence of wrongful confinement and the other offences were non-cognizable. Consequently, the court quashed the FIR and all proceedings arising therefrom.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Quashing of FIR - Non-Cognizable Offences - Sections 341, 323, 427, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC - The petitioners sought quashing of FIR on the ground that the complaint did not disclose the offence of wrongful confinement and the other offences were non-cognizable. The court held that the FIR was liable to be quashed as the investigation could not proceed without prior sanction for non-cognizable offences. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the FIR No.62/2016 registered under Sections 341, 323, 427, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC should be quashed on the ground that the complaint did not disclose the offence of wrongful confinement and the other offences were non-cognizable in nature.
Final Decision
The court quashed FIR No.62/2016 and all proceedings arising therefrom.
Law Points
- Non-cognizable offences cannot be investigated without prior sanction
- FIR liable to be quashed if no cognizable offence disclosed
- Section 341 IPC is cognizable but other offences alleged were non-cognizable
