AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Date : 11-08-2026 Heard the parties.
The present quashing petition has been preferred to quash the cognizance order dated 31.05.2017 in Trial No. 2428/2017 arising out of Raghopur P.S. Case No. 10/2017 passed by learned ACJM-IV, Hajipur, where cognizance has been taken under Section 188 of the IPC against the petitioners.
The prosecution case, as per the information furnished by the informant that the Circle Officer of Raghopur block the informant received information that boats were being operated at Kanganghat, Sukumarpur, without valid registration. It was further alleged that boats were being rowed even after sunset, carrying tourists. During the informant's investigation, it was found that the relevant rules were being violated by seven persons, namely: (1) Nagendra Rai, (2) Vasudeo Rai, (3) Ranjit Rai, (4) Sanjit Rai, (5) Dharmendra Rai, (6) Vijay Rai, and (7) Awadhesh Rai. The informant accordingly directed the Station House Officer of Rustampur Out Post (O.P.) to lodge a FIR in this matter.
Pursuant to the FIR, investigation was concluded and chargesheet was submitted, whereafter cognizance was taken on 31.05.2017 by the learned Trial Court under Section 188 of the IPC against petitioner.
It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners that institution of FIR on the instruction of Circle Officer, Raghopur block is not maintainable as per the provision of law available under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, where it is specifically provisioned that for such offence only complaint in writing can be filed. It is submitted that complaint in writing as it is obvious a complaint within, the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Cr.P.C. It is submitted that on this score alone, the cognizance which was taken on the basis of FIR, which was lodged under instruction of CO appears bad in the eyes of law and same is fit to be quashed and set aside. It is pointed out that matter is still pending with learned trial court. While concluding his arugument, learned counsel relied upon the report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal and Others reported in 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335.
It would be apposite to reproduce Section 195 (1) (a) of the Cr.P.C., which is as under:-
195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of
public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence.-(1)
No Court shall take cognizance-
(a)(i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860), 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;
It would also be apposite to reproduce the paragraph no. 102 of the Bhajan Lal Case (supra), which reads as under:
“102.In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2)Where the allegations in the first informant report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3)Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of nay offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4)Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5)Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent persons can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6)Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7)Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”
In view of aforesaid factual and legal provisions it transpires that offence punishable u/S 172 to 188 of the IPC or for any abatement or intent to commit such offence including criminal conspiracy, nor Court shall take cognizance except on the complaint in writing and, therefore the impugned cognizance order appears bad in the eyes of law. Accordingly, by taking note of guidelines as mentioned in para no.6 of Bhajan Lal (supra), impugned order of cognizance dated 31.05.2017 with all its consequential proceedings, qua, all above named petitioners arising thereof as passed in Trial No. 2428/2017 arising out of Raghopur P.S. Case No. 10/2017, pending before learned ACJM-IV, Vaishali at Hajipur is hereby quashed and set aside.
Hence, this application stands allowed.
TCR (Trial Court Records), if any, be returned to the learned Trial Court alongwith the copy of this judgment.