2003 (9) TMI 810 - SC - Indian Laws

Seeking to Quash the FIR - Applicability of Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code - HELD THAT - We are unable to accept the submissions made on behalf of the Respondents Firstly it is to be seen that the High Court does not quash the complaint on the ground that Section 195 applied and that the procedure under Chapter XXVI had not been followed. Thus such a ground could not be used to sustain the impugned judgment Even otherwise there is no substance in the submission. The question whether Sections 195 and 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code affect the power of the police to investigate into a cognizable offence has already been considered by this Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Raj Singh 1998 (1) TMI 533 - SUPREME COURT . It was submitted that In the petition it had been squarely urged that Section 195 applied. It was submitted that the High Court should have considered this aspect. It was pointed out that the question whether Section 195 applies to documents forged prior to the proceedings in which they are tendered has due to conflict of decisions been referred to a 5 Judge bench. We see no substance in this submission. The law on the point is clear. At the stage of investigation Section 195 has no application. We are therefore not concerned with the question whether Section 195 applies to documents forged/fabricated prior to their being produced in Court. That question only arises after the Court takes cognizance. At this stage the only question is whether the investigation should be permitted to proceed or not. As stated above there is no ground or reason on which the complaint/FIR can be quashed. For the above reasons the impugned order needs to be and is accordingly set-aside. The petition for quashing will stand dismissed. The Appeal is allowed accordingly. There will be no order as to cost.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of FIR
2. Applicability of Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code
3. High Court's assessment of evidence and allegations of mala fides

Summary:

1. Quashing of FIR:
The Supreme Court addressed an appeal against an order dated 26th August 2002, which quashed an FIR. The Appellant had filed a complaint alleging forgery and fabrication of documents by the Respondents, leading to the registration of an FIR u/s 468, 470, 471, and 120B IPC. The High Court quashed the FIR, concluding that the complaint was vexatious, frivolous, and false based on the material produced by the Respondents. The Supreme Court emphasized that the power to quash an FIR must be exercised sparingly and only in the rarest of rare cases. The Court reiterated that at the stage of FIR registration, the police must not assess the reliability or credibility of the information but must proceed with the investigation if a cognizable offence is disclosed.

2. Applicability of Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code:
The Respondents argued that the case fell u/s 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code, implying that the provisions of Chapter XXVI would apply, thereby excluding the provisions of Chapter XII. They contended that the only procedure to be followed was to make an application to the Court, and not following this procedure affected their rights u/Article 21 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, citing the case of State of Punjab v. Raj Singh, which clarified that Sections 195 and 340 do not control or circumscribe the police's power to investigate under the Criminal Procedure Code. The Court held that the investigation must proceed, and the embargo in Section 195 would only come into play once the investigation is completed and the Court takes cognizance.

3. High Court's Assessment of Evidence and Allegations of Mala Fides:
The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for examining the documents, comparing signatures, and concluding that the documents were not false or fabricated without proper evidence. The High Court's conclusion that the complaint was false, vexatious, and frivolous was based on unsubstantiated allegations by the Respondents. The Supreme Court highlighted that the High Court should not have anticipated the investigation's result or rendered a finding on the question of mala fides at this premature stage. The Court emphasized that even if the complaint was made out of personal vendetta, it should not be discarded without proper investigation.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of the High Court, allowing the investigation to proceed. The petition for quashing the FIR was dismissed, and the appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.