STATE OF PUNJAB versus BRI.J LAL PALTA

Citation: [1969] 1 S.C.R. 853 · Decided: 26-08-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

• 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
v. 
BRI.J LAL PALTA 
August 26, 1968 
(S. M. SIKRI, R. S. BACHAWAT AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, s. 195(1)(b)-lndian Penal Code, ss. 
182, 193, 211-Report of offence lodged with police found to be false-
lnformant filing complaint before Magistrate on san1e allegations--Cannot. 
be charge-sheeted by police for offences under ss.. 
182, 193 
and 211 
l.P.C.-Prosecution for these 
offences can only· be on 
complaint 
by 
Magistrate-Prosecution by police can proceed i~ ·respect of non-cogniz-
able offences investigated along with offences c~vered by s. l95(i)(b). 
The 'respondent filed a First Information Report against certain per-
sons alleging offences committed by them unc'oer ss. 420 and 406 read with 
s. 34 and s. 120B I.P.C. 
After investigation the police filed a report 
under s. 173 Cr. P.C. to the effe<t that while the allegations made by the 
respondent were found to be completely false he himself had comm'tted· 
offences under ss. 408, 467, 474, 193, 385, 109, 211 and 182 of the 
Indian Penal Code. 
A charge-sheet was 'Submitted' against him in, respect 
df these offences. 
Meanwhile the respondent. :filed a oomplaint before 
a Magistrate First Class based on the same facts as he had alleged in his 
First Information Report. 
Thereafter he filed a petition in the High 
Court under s. 561A Cr. P.C. for quashing, the 
proceedings 
pending 
against him. 
The High Court held in favour of the respondent and 
quashed the proceedings in respect of all the charges, 
Against the High 
Court's judgment the State appealed. 
On the· question whether in the 
circumstances of the cases. 195(1)(b) was a,bar to.the prosecution of 
the respondent in respect of the various offences· fOf which he was charge-
sheeted. 
· · 
HELD : (i) So far as prosecution undei s. Zll. cf the Penal Code 
is concerned, once a complaint fi1ed by the inf9,fmarit is being proceeded 
with which is based on the same facts and allegations 01\ which the First 
Information Report was registered, it is not open .. to ·a Magistrate to take 
cognizance of any offence alleged to have been committed under that 
section unless there has been proper comp1ia~ce··:-viih '!fie provi~ion_s of 
s. ·195(1)(b) of the Cr.-P.C. 
If the complaint 1s ult:Jmately d·sm1ssed 
and the. Magistrate refused to lodge a complaint .under s. 195(1) (b) its 
provisions will be defeated or circumvented if. th.e police can move the 
Magistrate to take cognizance on a police rcpo'rt Of 
itn 
offence under 
s. 211. [858 H-859 C] 
· · 
M. L. Sethi v. R. P. Kapur and Allr., [1967] 1 S.C.R. 520, relied on. 
(ii) For the same reasons as in the case· 6f an offence under s. 211 
l.P.C., no cognizance can be taken by the Magistrate for the 
alle~ed 
offence under s. 193 of the Penal Code which is. onei Of the sections men-
tioned in s. 195 ( 1) (b). [860 Al 
(iii) The offence under s. 182 is distinct from the one under s. 211 
though the latter is more serious and may include the offence under the 
f8rmer section. 
The Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence under 
s. 182 on a complaint in writing of the police officer by virtue of the 
I Sup CI/69-8 
. 
• 
• 
S54 
Sl'l'REME COURT REPORTS 
[1969)1 SCR 
provisions containeJ in s. l'J5(1)(a) of the Cr. P.C. 
But 
it 
would 
A 
virtually lead to the circumven:ion of the prov"ions of s. 195(1)(h) if 
rhr prnccr<l1ngs under s. J82 can continue \vhcrc the offence discloozd 
as in the prl·scnt caso is roverC<f by s. 21 t Indian Penal Code and a 
complaint is pcnJing which has l>ccn filed by the informant on the same 
f;:icts and allc_g;ition\ as \\'ere contained 
in the first 
infom1ation 
report. 
(859 C-HJ 
Casc-tt\\' con~idereiJ: 
B 
. 
(iv) In vie\\.· of the above findin£s 1hc prosecution of 1 he respondent 
m rcsp·:ict of offences . under ss. 182. 193 and 2 t I I.P.C. could not be 
proceeded \vith ;ind the procccdinl!-'i \Vere rightly qua:-ihc<l by the Hii;:h 
Court. 
Rut the pro~cculion in respect of offences under ss. 467, 471, '385 
etc. y.rhich \V'Crc 11on_-CQgni1.ahle co11td be proceeded with. for it is well 
settled hy now th:it ,,,hilc invc.,.tigating the commission of :i. cognizable 
offt!ncc the police <:iftccr is not debarred fron1 invcs1iga1ing any non-cog-
C 
nizablc offence which may arise out of the s:une fact". [860 B-F] 
Pravin Chandra :\1nd): v. Sra'r of Andhra Pradesh. (1965] 1 S.C.R. 
269, relied on. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal ,\ppeal )lo.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.