Crl. Rev. No.306 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Rev. No.306 of 2009
Date of Decision : 11.2.2009
Hukam Chand Gupta ...Petitioner
Versus
Om Parkash Goyal and others ...Respondents
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI
Present: Mr. Hukam Chand Gupta, petitioner, in person.
M.M.S.Bedi, J. (ORAL)
The petitioner is a complainant in a private complaint filed by
him against his daughter-in-law Renu Bala, widow of his son, who had
died in an accident and also against her parents and second husband
Dinesh Kumar. As per the allegations in the complaint Renu Bala had
received claim from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal for
herself and for the minor child namely Vishnu, on the ground that the
child had been living with her. Complainant/petitioner claims that the
child from her first marriage, as a matter of fact, was residing with Maya
Devi and Om Parkash Goyal, after Renu Bala left the minor with her step
mother (Maya Devi). Complainant/petitioner claims that the Tribunal
had been misguided by concealing the actual facts, as such the offence
under Sections 156, 196 and 192 read with Section 120-B of the IPC had
been committed by the respondents. After having been summoned the
respondents filed a revision petition before the Addl. Sessions Judge,
Kaithal. The said revision petition of the respondents was allowed
holding that in view of the provisions of Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C.
Crl. Rev. No.306 of 2009 2
cognizance of the offence under Sections 192, 196 read with 120-B IPC
could not have been taken. The operative part of the order passed by the
Revisional Court reads as follows :
“7. As a sequel to my aforesaid observation, the present
criminal revision petition is accepted. The impugned order
dated 16.9.2006 passed by the learned trial Court is hereby set
aside in so far as it relates the cognizance taken by the learned
trial Court by summoning the accused is concerned. However,
before parting with the judgment it is observed that the learned
trial Court is at liberty to follow the procedure prescribed, and
mandated under Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. and as such can
forward a complaint against the accused in writing for the
offence under Sections 192 and 196 read with Section 120-B of
the Indian Penal Code as it is satisfied that the offence against
public justice has been committed by the accused. Lower
Court record alongwith the copy of this judgment be sent back
forthwith. Revision petitions be consigned to the record room
after due compliance.”
The validity of the abovesaid order has been challenged by the
complainant/petitioner by appearing in person before this Court. Main
contention of the petitioner is that the provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C.,
will not be applicable in the present case as no proceedings are pending,
as such the cognizance for offences under Sections 192 and 196 IPC
could be taken irrespective of the provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C.
The petitioner has submitted that the criminal proceedings
initiated by him against the respondents for giving false evidence before
Crl. Rev. No.306 of 2009 3
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal should continue.
I have heard the petitioner and considered the same in context
to the allegations in the complaint as well as the provisions of Section
195 Cr.P.C. The said provisions create a bar against taking cognizable of
an offence in certain specified situations except upon complaint by Court.
This section is not a penal provision itself but is a part of the procedural
law, namely, Code of Criminal Procedure which elaborately gives
procedure for trial of criminal cases. Chapter XXVI of the Code of
Criminal Procedure prescribes a procedure in cases mentioned in Section
195 Cr.P.C. The object of Section 340 Cr.P.C. is to ascertain whether
any offence affecting administration of justice has been committed in
relation to any document produced or given in evidence in Court during
the time when the document of evidence was in custodia legis and
whether it is also expedient in the interest of justice to take such action as
required under Section 340 Cr.P.C. Object of this Section is to safeguard
against frivolous and vexatious prosecution by private evidence in respect
to offences which relate to administration of justice. Section 195 (1)
Cr.P.C. mandates a complaint in writing of the Court for taking
cognizance of the offences enumerated in clauses (b) (i) and (b) (ii)
thereof. Section 340 Cr.P.C. and Section 341 Cr.P.C. give procedure for
filing of complaint and other matters connected therewith. The petitioner
had filed a private complaint in the Court of CJM, Kaithal, under
Sections 192 and 196 read with Section 120-B IPC against the
respondents and the respondents had been summoned on the basis of
preliminary evidence to face trial under Sections 192, 196 and 120-B
IPC. The revisional Court has set aside the said order vide impugned
Crl. Rev. No.306 of 2009 4
order dated October 16, 2008, giving liberty to the trial Court to follow
the procedure prescribed under the law, while considering the legality
and propriety of the order passed by the Additional CJM. There does not
appear to be any defect in the order passed by the revisional Court which
is in consonance with the spirit of Section 195 Cr.P.C. and Section 340
Cr.P.C.
The main grievance of the petitioner is that his grand-son, after
the death of his son had been illegally handed over to the mother
(daughter-in-law) and that they have misguided the Guardian Court and
the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to prejudice his legal rights.
Since the offence alleged in the complaint is concerned with the
administration of justice, the procedure prescribed for such offence has to
be followed. Petitioner has appeared in person and tried to apply the ratio
of the judgment of M.L. Sethi Vs. R.P.Kapoor and others AIR 1967 SC
528.
I have gone through the said judgment. But the facts of the
said case do not seem to be relevant and the ratio of said judgment is not
applicable to the facts of this case. As such no ground is made out for
interference.
Dismissed.
11.2.2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) Vimal JUDGE