STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR. versus PASTOR P. RAJU

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 269 · Decided: 04-08-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.P. MATHUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

ST A TE OF KARNA T AKA AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
PASTOR P. RAJU 
AUGUST 4, 2006 
[G.P. MATHUR AND DALVEER BHANDARI, JJ.] 
B 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Sections 173, 196(1A) and 482-lndian 
Penal Code, 1860-Section 153B-Criminal case registered against accused 
under section l 53B lPC-Accused was arrested and was remanded to judicial C 
custody by Magistrate-Petition before High Court filed by the accused to 
quash the criminal proceedings-High Court quashed the proceedings on the 
ground that previous sanction required under section 196(JA) Cr.P.C. from 
appropriate authority has not been obtained-Correctness of-Held, previous 
sanction is required only for taking cognizance of an offence by Court and not 
for registration of a criminal case and conducting investigation thereof- D 
Order of Magistrate remanding an accused judicial to custody for investigation 
does not amount to taking cognizance of an offence by Court-On facts, the 
criminal proceedings was only at investigation stage-Inherent power cannot 
be exercised by High Court to interfere with the statutory power of police to 
conduct investigation in a cognizable offence-Hence, the High Court was in E 
error in quashing the criminal proceedings. 
Respondent, who is a member of Christian community, made an 
appeal to people to get themselves converted to Christian religion and 
thereby entitling themselves many benefits and. facilities. An FIR was 
lodged and a case has been registered against the respondent under section p 
1538 IPC. The respondent was arrested by the police and was produced 
before a Magistrate who remanded him to judicial custody. The 
respondent moved a bail application before the Magistrate which was 
rejected on the ground that the offence is a non-bailable offence. The 
respondent filed a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. before High Court 
to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him contending that G 
the criminal proceedings initiated under section 1538 IPC were illegal and 
without jurisdiction on the ground of non-obtaining of the required 
previous sanction from appropriate authority under section 196(1A) 
Cr.P.C. The High Court allowed the petition of the respondent and 
269 
H 
270 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A quashed the criminal proceedings. Hence the appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. The bar created under section 196(1A) IPC is against 
taking of cognizance of an offence by the Court. There is no bar against 
B registration of a criminal case or investigation by the police agency or 
submission of a report by the police on completion of investigation as 
contemplated by Section 173 Cr.P.C. If a criminal case is registered, 
investigation of the offence is done and the police submits a report as a 
result of such investigation before a Magistrate without the previous 
sanction of the Central Government or of the State Government or of the 
C Dist.rict Magistrate, there will be no violation of Section 196(1A) Cr.P.C. 
and no illegality of any kind would be committed. 1274-B-D] 
1.2. The cognizance of an offence is taken at the initial stage when 
the Magistrate applies his judicial mind to the facts mentioned in a 
D complaint or to police report or upon information received from any other 
person that an offence has been committed. The issuance of process is at 
a subsequent stage when after considerin~ the material placed before it 
the Court decides to proceed against the offenders against whom a prima 
facie case is made out. Neither any complaint had been filed nor any police 
report had been submitted nor any information had been given by any 
E person other than the police officer before the Magistrate competent to 
take cognizance of the offence. The Magistrate had merely passed an order 
remanding the respondent to judicial custody. A limited role has to be 
performed by the Judicial Magistrate to whom the accused has been 
forwarded, viz., to authorize his detention under section 167 Cr.P.C. This 
F is anterior to Section 190 Cr.P.C. which confers power upon a Magistrate 
to take cognizance of an offence. Therefore, an order remanding an 
accused to judicial custody does not amount to taking cognizance of an 
offence. In such circumstances, Section I 96(1A) Cr.P.C. can have no 
application at all and the High Court clearly erred in quashing the 
proceedings on the ground that previous sanction of the Central 
G Government or of the State Government or of the District Magis

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