NCLAT: IRP Has Authority to Take Possession of Assets Owned by Corporate Debtor  ||  NCLAT: NCLT Can Direct Forwarding a Copy of its Order to Relevant Statutory Authorities  ||  Delhi HC: Centre to Expedite Process of Accessibility Features in OTT platforms for PwDs  ||  Delhi HC: Once Worker Provides Testimony Under Oath ‘Burden of Proof’ Shifts on Employer  ||  SC: There Cannot be Discrimination in Matter of Payment of Pension to Retired Judges  ||  SC: India is Not a Dharamshala that Can Entertain Foreign Nationals from All Over  ||  SC: Can Quash Domestic Violence Act Complaints Under Section 482 of CrPC  ||  Supreme Court: Can’t Use Statement of One Accused against Another  ||  SC: Inclusion of Name in Draft NRC Cannot Annul Foreigners Tribunal’s Declaration as Non-Citizen  ||  Supreme Court: Minimum Practice of 3 Years Mandatory to Enter Judicial Service    

Sachin and Ors. Vs. State of NCT of Delhi - (High Court of Delhi) (01 Jul 2019)

No Court could take cognizance of offence under Section 186 of IPC except on a complaint of a proper officer made under Section 195 of CrPC

MANU/DE/2044/2019

Criminal

Petitioner impugns order, whereby, charges have been framed against the Petitioners under Sections 186, 353 and 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) read with Section 34 of IPC. FIR was registered under Sections 186, 353, 332 and34 of IPC registered on the complaint of Inspector. It is submitted on behalf of the Petitioners that, without appreciating facts, Trial Court has erroneously framed charges against the Petitioners.

For a charge under Section 307 IPC to be framed, the nature of weapon used, the manner in which it is used, motive for the crime, severity of the blow, part of the body where injury is inflicted, is all to be taken into consideration to determine the intention.

In the present case, there is no allegation that any weapon was used. The CT Scan clearly shows no abnormality or injury to the head. Manner in which the Investigating Officer as well as the complainant have conducted themselves clearly shows that, an attempt was made to obtain an opinion that the nature of injury sustained was serious in nature. An effort was made to inflate the charges. The facts clearly show that a charge under Section 307 of IPC could not have been framed against the Petitioners.

With regard to the charges framed under Sections 186 and 353 of IPC is concerned, said charges could not have been framed in the absence of compliance with Section 195 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). No court can take cognizance of an offence under Section 186 IPC unless a complaint is made by the proper officer in the proper format as prescribed under Section 195 of CrPC. Breach of Section 195 of CrPC renders the action void ab initio.

Non-compliance of Section 195 of CrPC is a non-curable defect and renders the proceeding void ab initio. Further, it may be seen that, Section 353 of IPC has also been invoked in the subject case which is, in fact, an extension of Section 186 of IPC. The allegations with regard to Section 353 of IPC, as contained in the subject FIR, really fall in the nature of an offence under Section 186 of IPC. No Court could have taken cognizance of the offence under Section 186 of IPC except on a complaint of a proper officer made under Section 195 of CrPC.

Further, it may be seen that, the entire proceedings smack of arbitrariness and vindictiveness on the part of the complainant and falls squarely within the parameters of the decision of the Supreme Court in Manoj Sharma vs. State and Prabhu Chawla vs. State of Rajasthan, wherein, the Supreme Court has held that substantive justice requires that proceedings of such a mala fide nature should be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of CrPC.

Further, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is rendered void ab initio as subject proceedings suffer from infraction of Section 195 of CrPC, being against the dicta of the Supreme Court in Daulat Ram vs. State of Punjab. Impugned order framing charges against the Petitioners is set aside. Petition allowed.

Relevant : Manoj Sharma vs. State: MANU/SC/8122/2008, Prabhu Chawla vs. State of Rajasthan: MANU/SC/0979/2016, Daulat Ram vs. State of Punjab: MANU/SC/0139/1962

Tags : COGNIZANCE   PROCEEDINGS   VALIDITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved