Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a criminal complaint filed by Shree Hari Rice & Agro Ltd. (respondent no.1) against M/s Lan Eseda Industries Ltd. (petitioner) and others, alleging offences under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, including sections relating to false evidence, forgery, criminal breach of trust, cheating, and conspiracy. The complaint was filed under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gondia, seeking registration of an FIR and investigation. The parties had been involved in prior litigation before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), New Delhi, concerning an immovable property in Gondia. Respondent no.1 claimed to be an auction purchaser, but the Recovery Officer declared it a trespasser. After unsuccessful appeals up to the Supreme Court, respondent no.1 filed the instant complaint. It alleged that the petitioner and its directors had filed false affidavits and documents in proceedings before the DRT and in a civil suit pending before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gondia. The police investigated and submitted a report concluding that the allegations pertained to court proceedings. Despite a protest petition, the Magistrate issued process for offences under Sections 197, 198, 199, 200, 207, 209, 210, 406, 420 read with 34 IPC. The Sessions Court set aside the order but remanded the matter for further examination under Section 200 CrPC. The core legal issue was whether the complaint was maintainable in view of the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC, which provides that no court can take cognizance of certain specified offences when committed in or in relation to court proceedings, except on a written complaint by that court. A subsidiary issue was whether the presence of other offences not covered by the bar permitted the complaint to proceed as to those offences. The petitioner argued that all allegations stemmed from the same transaction of filing false affidavits and documents in court proceedings, thus the entire complaint was barred without a court complaint, relying on State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy. Respondent no.1 contended that sufficient material showed commission of offences and the complaint should not be rejected merely due to the bar, as that would leave the complainant remediless. The court analyzed Section 195 CrPC, emphasizing its mandatory nature. It noted that the bar applies when the specified offences are alleged to have been committed 'in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court.' Relying on Hemareddy, the court held that when offences for which a court complaint is necessary and those for which it is not form part of the same transaction, the complaint cannot be split; the prosecution for non-barred offences must also fail. The court found that the complaint's allegations clearly pertained to false affidavits and documents filed before the DRT and civil court. Thus, the offences under Sections 193, 199, 200, etc., fell squarely within the bar. Since the other alleged offences were integrally connected to the same transaction, the entire complaint was not maintainable without a written complaint by those courts. Accordingly, the Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the orders issuing process and the remand, and declared the complaint not maintainable due to the Section 195(1)(b)(i) bar.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Cognizance of Offences - Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC - Court Complaint Requirement - The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sections 195(1)(b)(i) - The court held that no court can take cognizance of offences under Sections 193 to 196, 199, 200, 205 to 211, and 228 IPC when alleged to have been committed in or in relation to any proceeding in any court, except on a complaint in writing of that court. The provision aims to preserve the integrity of judicial proceedings by restricting prosecution to the court where the alleged offence occurred. (Paras 12-13) B) Criminal Procedure - Splitting of Complaint - Same Transaction - Section 195 CrPC - Prohibition on Splitting - The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 195 - Where a transaction gives rise to both offences requiring a court complaint under Section 195(1)(b) and offences not so requiring, the complaint cannot be split; the entire prosecution fails if the barred offences form part of the same transaction. The Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy held that it is impermissible to uphold prosecution for the non-barred offences alone. (Paras 14-15) C) Criminal Procedure - Complaint Under Section 156(3) - Maintainability - Barred Offences - The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sections 156(3), 195(1)(b)(i) - A private complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC is not maintainable when the allegations pertain to offences under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC, as the law mandates a written complaint by the concerned court. In the present case, the complaint alleging false affidavits and documents filed before the DRT and civil court was found to be entirely barred, and thus quashed. (Paras 10, 16)
Issue of Consideration
Whether complaint filed under Section 156(3) CrPC was maintainable in view of bar under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC when it included both specified and non-specified offences from same transaction.
Final Decision
The writ petition was allowed. The complaint filed by respondent no.1 (Misc. Criminal Application No. 264 of 2016) and all orders passed therein, including the Magistrate's order issuing process and the Sessions Court's order remanding the matter, were quashed. The court held that the complaint was not maintainable due to the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC, as the allegations related to offences committed in court proceedings and other offences arose from the same transaction.
Law Points
- Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC bars cognizance of specified offences without written complaint of court
- same transaction principle
- complaint cannot be split
- private complaint under Section 156(3) not maintainable for barred offences
