- (1.) BARKAT Ali Zaidi, J. The facts of the case are that the complainant lady who is Opp. Party No. 2, married with the applicant who was a widower and thereafter differences arose between them and then the lady filed a First Information Report making the following allegations; (i) That after the death of her earlier husband in 1992, she married the applicant as per Arya Samaj rites on 15. 1. 1992 on his repeated assurances that he will bear all the expenses of her four children, will educate them and keep them with him and on his persuasions, they embraced Hindu religion from Christianity. (ii) After a few days of marriage, the applicant took all her household goods and articles from Kanpur to Kannauj. Thereafter he got purchased a colour T. V. , Almirah, V. C. P. etc. out of the money of which her previous husband had left and took possession of all ornaments worth Rs. Eighty thousand, which she had in her possession. (iii) The applicant got her insured for a sum of Rs. 5 lacs, his behavior, thereafter, changed. He did not pay school fee and therefore, one of the children, was expelled from the school and the applicant started goading her to sell off all immoveable property inherited from her previous husband as to arrange money for him, and in case she fails to comply, he will throw out her from the vehicle and he will receive about Rs. 15-20 lacs the sum of her insurance. On her refusal, he stopped to pay education expenses of the children and also refused to maintain her and started planning to kill her and, therefore, she had returned Kanpur. His sister Gayatri Devi and niece Pankaj Singh and Mukesh Singh who were staying with the applicant, also harassed her. (iv) The applicant re-married lady Sahgal at Aligarh jointly who has also left him.
(2.) DURING investigation in the case, the investigating officer discovered that the applicant has made forged signatures of the complainant lady on a power of attorney for collection of rent and for the purposes of litigation, which was attested by an Oath Commissioner. According to the investigating officer, the signatures on the power of attorney are not of the complainant. The contention in this application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. from the side of the applicant is that the applicant has been exonerated of all the charges levelled in the First Information Report against him by the investigating officer, but has found that the signatures on power of attorney were forged and for this offence he has given a charge-sheet, which is pending in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate-IV, Kanpur Nagar. The contention by the Counsel for the applicant is that since this offence is not mentioned in the First Information Report, he could not be prosecuted in this offence. The contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant is based on mis-apprehension of the scheme as postulated by the Cr. P. C. Section 154 Cr. P. C. makes it clear that a cognizable offence can be investigated by the police, when it comes to their notice. It is not necessary that there should be a F. I. R. or that there could be even a complainant. For example, if a dead-body is found lying on the road and nobody lodges a First Information Report, about the same, it does not mean that the police cannot investigate and proceed with the investigation. It is not, therefore, correct to argue that a person cannot be prosecuted for a cognizable offence, unless there is a First Information Repots by the complainant. The Counsel for the applicant further argued that the investigating officer cannot substitute a new offence which has not been mentioned in the First Information Report. This principle of Civil Law of substituting a new case not mentioned in the complaint is not applicable to the criminal cases and is confined only to civil proceedings.
(3.) IT is, therefore, not possible to say that the charge of forgery against the applicant cannot proceed merely because, it is not mentioned in the First Information Report. Application dismissed.;