- (1.) G. P. Mathur, J. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed for quashing the FIR dated 14-6-1996 lodged by Respondent No. 6 on the basis of which a case has been registered as Crime No 156/96 under Sections 419/420/467/468 IPC at P. S. Ahrauli, district Azamgarh against the petitioner.
(2.) THE allegations in the FIR in brief, is that the complainant's grand father Aparbal Tiwari had executed a registered will in favour of the complainant's wife Smt. Kamla Devi in 1983 and the died in June, 1989. THE petitioner Paras Nath Singh manufactured a forged unregistered will purporting to have been executed by Aparbal Tiwari in August, 1992 in his favour and succeeded in obtaining mutation of his name over the property of Aparbal Tiwari aforesaid in October, 1992. It is alleged that the will was forged and fictitious as Aparbal Tiwari had died in 1989 and as such there was no question of his actuating any will in favour or Paras Nath Singh in August, 1992. The only submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners is that the will of August, 1992 was filed by Paras Nath Singh in mutation proceedings before Tehsilder (Revenue Court) and in view of Section 195 (l) (b) (ii) Cr. P. C. cognizance of such an offence could be taken only on the complaint in writing of the Mutation Court and in this view of the matter, the police has no right to investigate the case and conse quently, the FIR and investigation are liable to be quashed. It may be noticed that on the basis of the FIR lodged by the complainant, a case under Section 419/420/467/468 IPC has been registered at the Police Section. These offences are cognizable offences and, there fore, the case was rightly registered in view of Section 154 Cr. P. C. The officer-in-Charge of a Police Station has a right to investigate a cognizable offence without the order of a Magistrate in view of Section 156 (1) Cr. P. C. It has been held by Privy Council in AIR, 1945 P. C. 18 (Emperor v. Nazir Ahmad) that the power under Section 156, Cr. P. C. is not limited by any condition. In State of West Bengal v. S. N. Basak, AIR 1963 SC 447, it has been held that the police has a statutory right to investigate a cog nizable offence without the sanction of any Court. The bar created by Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) is against taking of cognizance by a Court with respect to any offence described in Section 463 or punishable under Sections 471 and 475 or Section 476 of the Penal Code when such offence is allowed to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceed ing in any Court. The stage of taking cog nizance is entirely different from investiga tion of the case and the said stage will arrive after charge-sheet has been submitted. It is not the case of the petitioners that after investigation the police has submitted charge sheet against them and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the of fence. Therefore, the provisions of Section 195 (l) (b) (ii) Cr. P. C. cannot act as bar against registration of a criminal case or investigation by the police. This very ques tion has been considered in considerable detail by a learned Single Judge in G. B. Gupta v. State of U. P 1986 A. W. C. 254 and it has been held as follows: "first information report relating to a cog nizance offence has to be investigated by a police officer as provided under Section 156 of the Code. In Section 156 or any other provision for the matter contained in the Code, we do not find a bar expressly made against investigation being taken up and carried on by a police officer, even though the offence is such that the cognizable may not be taken by a Magistrate except upon a complaint as provided in Section 195 (l) (b),cr. P. C. "
(3.) WE are in respectful agreement with the aforesaid view. No other point was urged.;