Shiv Kumar Sharma, J. - (1.) Core question that cropped up for consideration is, whether the prohibition contained in Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Cr.RC.) would affect the statutory power of the police to investigate into an FIR which discloses a cognizable offence, in accordance with Chapter XII of the Cr.PC. even if the offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in court?
(2.) This question emerges in the wake of circumstances set- out below- (i) Informant Savitri Devi Non-petitioner No.2 (for short the informant instituted written FIR with the Police Station Kotwali Alwar on December 8, 1997 stating therein that the petitioner on Sept. 8, 1986 had drawn a forged agreement to sell and used it in a civil suit instituted in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Alwar, on November 25, 1997 on the basis of said FIR a criminal case bearing No. 750/97 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC was registered against the petitioner. (ii) Petitioner has submitted the instant petition under section 482 Cr.PC. seeking quashing of aforesaid FIR. Contention of petitioner is that he has been running a Floor Mill in the shop owned by the informant in the capacity of tenant. At one stage the informant instituted a suit for eviction against the petitioner which was dismissed, thereafter the informant decided to sell the premises to the petitioner and entered in to an agreement to sell with the petitioner on Sept. 8. 1986. Right from entering into agreement to sell, the informant has been delaying the registration of formal sale deed on one pretext or the other. Finally apprehending dishonest intention of the informant, the petitioner was constrained to file a civil suit for specific performance against the informant on November 25, 1997 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Alwar. After receiving the summons of the said civil suit the informant instituted FIR against the petitioner.
(3.) Mr. S.R. Bajwa learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner canvassed that the impugned FIR fails to disclose the ingredients of any of the offences mentioned therein. Offence under Section 467 IPC is non-cognizable. Offence under section 120-B IPC is completely out of focus as FIR has been registered only against one person. So far offence under Section 471 IPC is concerned, the same if at all, could come into existence only when the alleged forged document was put into use by submitting the same in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Alwar. Consequently no cognizance of an offence involving the use of forged document as a genuine document can be taken by any court unless a regular criminal complaint is filed by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Alwar. The impugned FIR thus is wholly without purpose. Even if the police submits charge sheet under Section 471 IPC the Court shall stand barred from taking cognizance. So far offence under Section 468 IPC is concerned, the same relates to forgery defined in section 463 IPC and as such statutory bar contained under section 195 Cr.P.C. is attracted. Offence under Section 420 IPC is not made out from the FIR. In the face of mandatory bar contained in 195(1)(b) Cr.RC. allowing FIR to remain on record will only be empty formality. No useful purpose is likely to be served by permitting the investigating agency to go ahead with investigation. Reliance was placed on Surjit Singh v. Balbir Singh (1996 (3) Recent Criminal Reports 240) .;