LexSTATE OF U. P. versus SURESH CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA & ORS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
·'. >n
-a
; ' .
_.--.
D
E
F.',
G
H
. ·'
...
'·
STATE.OFU:P.·
.v.
sURESH CHANDRA s.RIVASTAVA & ORS.·
.
. . . .
May 3, 1984 .
[S. MURTAZA FA.zAL Au, A VARA~AAA1AN AND .
·· ··
· ·
RAN~A~Arn MISR~,JJ,J
. ; '
.
.
--
' ,,
Code of Criminal Procedurec...s, 195(/)(b)(ii°r-Scope of.,.
. -
.
.
.
The respondCntS.in the ·3pp:al and the ·petitione~s in" th~ ·special l~ave
. petitions were the same persoris arid ~ere erDvioyees o( : the.- AJlab-abaci_ High
'CoUrt .. The:Y W(re found to. have femoved ·some. used court fee stamps from·.
ol_d files and [e-us~d them in ne·w ·cases:· ~e Reiistrar_ with, th_e perinission of, ·
. · tbe.Chfof Justice of"the High Court reported~., tlie matter: to ·.the .PoliCe~ . The
.. Pofic.e after investigai.iofi subinitteci before the1rial Co~Ct three charge~sheets for
off~nCes undei ss. 262. 263,. 467--471 and 120B, I.P.C. - In an application· tiled- by
the resPondent for quashini-th~ PrOceedings,~the High Cotirt. held· that so far
·as the offences undcr·sS:-467. 471 and 120B,. f.P.C. werC:concerned as they .fell
w~tbin the 3mbii o(secti_gn_ 195(J)(b)(ii)- Of the Criminal Procedure rio cogni-
- zance could be ~en by thejriatcoU:rt without a complaint being filed, b"ut for·
Othet offences the_ pro'ceeding~ Would continue. Hence these' cross· appeitS and
· $pecial _Jeavc:: p~titit~ofls.
" ·
. '
-:riis~isSing the appe.als and the petitionS, ..
. . - .
HELD : The 1:aw .iS: ri0w wen 'settled- that Whe-re. an accused commits som~
Offences _which· are: separate and distiflct frOm those contained·_ in s.195 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, s.195 .will affect.Only the ·offe~ce;·meritiOned there-
. in unJesS: such offences form an int~gral part scr aS-to amount to offl!nces com-
mitted _'as a part .Of the Sarrie transaction,_ in which case the other offences also. __
would fall within the ambit of s. !95:orthe Code. [741 Di
.· ...
I~l"the i~siaiit case: On .the facts- narrated by the Registrar in his cOmPiaint
· no _offen-ce unciCr· ss. 467, 471 and l20B, I.P.C. is at.all revealed. At the most" the
.· offe.nces against the accused would fall withiri. the ambit or sections 262, 263,' 380
·-.·'-" -
.. I
··~
and 4iO, I.P.C; which do not require ·a compJ.ifnf under s. 195 of the Code of
\i....
Criminal Prcicedurl!. · .. As ~uch · it._ is-ncit necessary -'to go iD.tO the qllesdon as 'to
·what offences are connected with ss~ 467.-471 and_ ·-120B and ~hkh are Severable-· -· .·
from them .. The lligh Court· waS fullY justifi.C_d·. in quashirig the proCeediu&s •
agaui"st the- accµsed as far as. offe_D.ces under Ss-:' 467~-471 and 120B. I.P.C. ·were
con~rn~d, ·not because they Were ·covered_ bys.~ 195. of .the. Code but because
ciUegatiOns contained· in. thC complaint_ did not . contstitUte these· offences.• The
·_ lJ-igh Couti was_ further ·rutlr jtistified ·in dirCcting that other o~ences men\ion-
ed above did flat require a __ c_omplaint·under s.195.and _would ~veto be.tried.
.., .
\
·.
.
.
'
.
[741E-G[
,
..
. •' ":.
-~ -
tJ.P, STATE v. s.c. SRIVASTAVA (Fazal Ali, J.)
739
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURSDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos.
461-466 of 1980
•
From the Judgment & Order dated 9.11.78
High Court in Criminal Misc. Application Nos.
1691 and 1698 of 1979.
. AND
'
of the Allahaba<l
1655, 1656, 1657,
Special Leave Petition Nos. 903-908 of 1984
. Da!veer Bhandari & H.M. Singh for the appellant.
P. Govindan Nair and Pramod Swarup for the respondent-.
Pramod Swarup for the petitioner in SLP Nos. 903-908 of 1984.
The Judgment of the Court was delive~ed by
FAZAL ALI, J. These appeals by ~pecial leave 'arise out of a
judgment dated January 9, 1979 of the Allahabad High Court
refus.ing to quas\l<lhe proceedings in toto which were pending before ·
the Chief J1,1dicial Magistrate, Allahabad, in exercise of ihe powers
under s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 {hereinafter
to be referred to" as the 'Code'). The High Court, howevet, quashed
the proceedings only in respect of offences under ss. 467, 471 and
120B of the Indian Peria! Code and directed prosecution .of the res-
pondents in respect of other offences to proceed according to law.
In order to understand the implication of the judgment of the High.
Court, it may be necessary to narrate a few facts.
It appears that some time· in the year 1967 S.hankar Lal
Bhargava, who was officiating as Stamp Reporter in the Registry of
the Allahabad High Court, with the aid of SureshExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.