2018 (3) TMI 1944 - HC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of prosecution - only argument canvassed by the learned counsel appearing for the writ-applicants that the Court below could not have taken cognizance of the offence under the Act on the police report - HELD THAT - The issue raised in this writ-application is squarely covered by an order passed by this Court in PATEL DHARMENDRAKUMAR MADHAVLAL 2 VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT 1 2015 (4) TMI 1326 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT where it was held that whatever materials have been collected by the Investigating Officer could be used by the authority for the purpose of filing a complaint before the competent court. There are no hesitation in accepting the submission canvassed by the learned counsel appearing for the writ-applicants having regard to the settled position of law which has been explained in the referred order - application allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Quashing of FIR and Sessions Case
2. Cognizance of offences under specific Acts

Issue 1: Quashing of FIR and Sessions Case

The writ-applicants sought to quash the FIR and Sessions Case pending before the City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad. The FIR was lodged for offences under the Security Contract (Regulation) Act, 1956. The principal argument was that the Court below could not have taken cognizance of the offence under the Act based on the police report. The learned counsel relied on Section 26 of the Act, which restricts the court from taking cognizance except on a complaint by specific authorities. The Court considered the arguments and previous orders on a similar issue. The Court noted that the police investigation and chargesheet were completed, but the issue was whether the prosecution should be quashed based on the legal provisions.

Issue 2: Cognizance of offences under specific Acts

The Court analyzed Section 26 of the Security Contract (Regulation) Act, 1956, and the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992, which specify that no court can take cognizance of offences under these Acts except on a complaint by designated authorities. The Court clarified that even though the police have the power to investigate and file a chargesheet, the Sessions Court cannot take cognizance based on the police report due to the specific legal bar. The Court emphasized that the investigation materials can be used to file a complaint before the court. The Court referred to a previous order where it was held that the applicants made a strong prima facie case for an interim stay on further proceedings. The State acknowledged the settled legal position and agreed that the prosecution must fail. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ-application, quashed the proceedings of the Sessions Case, and terminated all consequential proceedings. The authorities were permitted to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with the law before the appropriate forum.

In conclusion, the High Court of Gujarat allowed the writ-application, quashing the proceedings of the Sessions Case pending before the City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad. The judgment highlighted the legal provisions restricting courts from taking cognizance of offences under specific Acts based solely on police reports and emphasized the importance of complaints by designated authorities for initiating legal proceedings.