Harjit Singh Bedi, J. - (1.) By this petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, a prayer has been made that F.I.R. No. 54 dated 16.10.1992 registered under Sections 353/186/323 Indian Penal Code, be quashed. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that for the initiation of proceeding under Section 186 Indian Penal Code the procedure prescribed under section 195(1), Criminal Procedure Code, (hereinafter called the Code) which provided for a complaint in writing by the public servant concerned was to be followed and this not having been done, the Court was not competed to take cognizance of the aforesaid offence. He has, in addition, urged that section 353, Indian Penal Code, being an aggravated form of the offence under Section 186, I.P.C., the same:: principle would apply in this case as well. in support of his case, reliance has been placed by the learned counsel on Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab. The provisions of section 195(1) of the Code insofar as relevant are reproduced hereunder No Court shall take cognizance (a) (i) of any offence punishable u/s. i72 to i88 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of i860) or, (ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit such offence, or (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate; (b) (i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code namely, Sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive) 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228 when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceedings in any Court or (ii) of any offence described in section 463, or punishable under section 471. Section 475 or section 476 of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court or
(2.) It will be seen from a reading of the aforesaid section that the bar imposed is specifically with regard to sections 172 to 188 of the Code and it is, therefore, clear that on the bare reading of the section, the court can take cognizance only on the complaint made in writing to the Court by a public servant with regard to the offence under section 186, Indian Penal Code. That having not been done and the proceedings having been initiated by a First Information Report, the charge under section 186, Indian Penal Code, to my mind, cannot be sustained. The reliance placed by the learned counsel as on the cited case is. therefore fully warranted.
(3.) Mr. Chahal has further argued (as already indicated) that section 353 of the Code being only an aggravated form of the offence under section 186, the same procedure was required to be followed for the initiation of the proceedings. This argument, to my mind, is without any merit, lithe framers of the Code desired that cognizance of the offence under section 353 Indian Penal Code was required to been in the same manner as in the case of section 186, I.P.C., this provision could also have been made in section 195 of the Code.;