CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION versus M. SIVAMANI

Citation: [2017] 7 S.C.R. 509 · Decided: 01-08-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ADARSH KUMAR GOEL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 7 S.C.R. 509 
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 
A 
v 
M. SIVAMANI 
(Criminal Appeal Nos.1261-1262 of2017) 
AUGUSTOl,2017 
B 
(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.J 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.195(l)(a)(i) - Bar 
under - On a challenge by insurer against the award passed in 
insurance claim petition, High Court ordered investigation by CBI 
C 
into allegation that claim was false - After investigation. CBI filed 
charge sheet -
Respondent filed petition pleading bar 
u/s.[95(l)(a)(i) on the ground that cognizance in respect of offence 
uls.182 /PC could not be taken except "on the complaint in writing 
of public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom 
he is administratively subordinate - Trial court dismissed the petition 
D 
- On revision, High Court reversed the order of trial court - On 
appeal. held: The direction of the High Court is at par with the 
direction of an administrative superior public servant to file a 
complaint in writing in terms of the statutory requirement - The 
protection intended by s.195 against a private person filing a 
E 
frivolous complaint is taken care of when the High Court finds that 
the matter was required to be gone into in public interest - Such 
direction cannot be rendered futile by invoking s.195 to such a 
situation - Once the High Court directs investigation into a specified 
offence mentioned in s.195, bar under s.195(/)(a) cannot be 
pressed into service - Penal Code, 1860 - s.182. 
F 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD : While the bar against cognizance of a specified 
offence is mandatory, the same has to be understood in the context 
of the purpose for which such a bar is created. The bar is not 
intended to take away remedy against a crime but only to protect 
G 
an innocent person against false or frivolous proceedings by a 
private person~ The expression "the public servant or his 
administrative superior" cannot exclude the High Court. It is 
clearly implicit in the direction of the High Court that it was 
H 
509 
510 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 7 S.C.R. 
A necessary in the interest of justice to take cognizance of the 
offence in question. Direction of the High Court is at par with 
the direction of an administrative superior public servant to file a 
complaint in writing in terms of the statutory requirement. The 
protection intended by the Section against a private person filing 
B a frivolous complaint is taken care of when the High Court finds 
that the matter was required to be gone into in public interest. 
Such direction cannot be rendered futile by invoking Section 195 
to such a situation. Once the High Court directs investigation 
into a specified offence mentioned in Section 195, bar under 
Section 195(l)(a) cannot be pressed into service. The view taken 
C 
by the High Court will frustrate the object of law and cannot be 
sustained. [Para 11) [516-E-H; 517-A) 
State of U.P. v. Mata Bhikh (1994) 4 SCC 95 : [1994( 2 
SCR 368; Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah 
(2005) 4 SCC 370 : [2005) 2 SCR 708; Peruma! v. 
D 
Janakai (2014) 5 SCC 377 : [2014) 1 SCR 591; M.S. 
E 
F 
Ah!awat v. State of Haryana (2000) 1 SCC 278 : [1999] 
4 Suppl. SCR 160 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
[1994( 2 SCR 368 
referred to 
Paras 
[2005) 2 SCR 708 
referred to 
Para 9 
[2014) 1 SCR 591 
referred to 
Para 9 
[1999) 4 Suppl. SCR 160 
referred to 
Para 10 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
Nos. 1261-1262 of2017. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.10.2015 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Revision Case No. 2 of 2009 and 
G 
M. P. No. 1 of2009. 
H 
Ms.Pinky Anand, ASG, Kailesh Vasudev, Sr. Adv., Ms.Alka 
Agrawal, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Hemant Arya, Advs. for the 
Appellant. 
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. M. SIVAMANI 
511 
Basant R., Sr. Adv. Senthil Jagadeesan, Ms. Shruti Iyer, Karthik A 
Ashok, ArunAnbumani, Advs. for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. These appeals have been 
preferred against Order dated 16'" October, 2015 of the High Court of 
judicature at Madras in Criminal Revision Case No.2 of2009 and M.P. 
B 
No.1 of 2009. The High Court has quashed the proceedings against the 
respondent in C.C. No.15 of2007 pending before the Additional Special 
Judge for CBI cases, Chennai. 
2. Facts stated in the charge sheet filed by the appellant-CBI 
against the respondent are that a claim petition was filed before the 
C 
Motor Acciden

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.