Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Judgment Reserved on: 09 December, 2009
th
% Judgment Delivered on: 11 December, 2009
+ CRL.M.C.642/2009
NAWAL KISHORE ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Harish Khanna, Adv.
versus
THE STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Manoj Ohri, APP for State
with SI O.P.Mandal, PS Kirti
Nagar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
Digest? Yes
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
1. By way of this petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing of
FIR no.395/1999 registered under Section 272/273/328 of the IPC
at PS Kirti Nagar against the present petitioner.
2. Allegations in the complaint were that some persons had
purchased Gulab Jamun from the Corner Sweet Shop of the
petitioner at Corporation Market, Ramesh Nagar. On consumption
they felt giddy and vomited. Samples were drawn by the police.
3. The public analyst vide report dated 13.9.1999 had opined
the sample to be adulterated as containing mycotoxins.
CRL.M.C.642/2009 Page 1 of 8
4. Charge-sheet was filed on 20.12.1999 under Section 272/273
and 328 of the IPC. Since the offence under Section 328 of the
IPC was triable exclusively by the Sessions Court, the matter was
committed to the Additional Sessions Judge.
5. On 25.11.2000, the Additional Sessions Judge had
discharged the petitioner for the offence under Section 328 of the
IPC and the case was remanded back to the court of ACMM to deal
with the charge-sheet for the offences under Section 272/273 of
the IPC. Notice was framed under the aforestated provisions of
law i.e under Section 272/273 of the IPC.
6. On 29.11.2007, a revision petition was preferred before the
court of Additional Sessions Judge against the framing of notice.
The argument propounded was that since the charge-sheet had
been filed for a cognizable offence as also for a non-cognizable
office but court having discharged the petitioner for a cognizable
offence and the charge having been framed only for a non-
cognizable offence the trial stood vitiated as the procedure under
Section 155 of the Cr.PC of taking prior permission to investigate
a non-cognizable offence not having been taken, the trial stood
vitiated. Revision petition has been dismissed on 2.12.2008.
7. Petitioner has impugned this order by invoking the inherent
powers of the High Court.
8. The short argument addressed before this court is that the
charge-sheet in this case had admittedly been filed under Section
CRL.M.C.642/2009 Page 2 of 8
328/272/273 of the IPC i.e. for both a cognizable and a non-
cognizable offence; the petitioner had however been discharged
for the cognizable offence i.e. for the offence under Section 328 of
the IPC and notice had been framed against him only for a non-
cognizable office i.e. for the offence under Section 272/273 of the
IPC; the procedure as mandated under Section 155 of the Cr.PC
i.e. prior permission not having been taken by the investigating
officer to investigate a non-cognizable offence the trial in
pursuance of such a charge-sheet stands vitiated; proceeding are
liable to be quashed.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon
judgment of this court reported in Mam Chand & Ors. vs. State
1999 (2) JCC (Delhi) 334, Ajit Singh vs. State 39 (1989) DLT 468,
Surender Kumar vs. State 1997 JCC 45 and Brahm Dutt & Ors. vs.
State & Ors. 1996 JCC 183. It is submitted that in view of the
clear-cut ratio laid down in the aforestated judgments since
requisite permission under Section 155 of the Cr.PC had not been
taken and the petitioner having been discharged for a cognizable
offence, trial for a non-cognizable offence could not now proceed.
It is submitted that this protection has been afforded to the public
against the high handedness of police officials who would be given
a long rope to start investigation and pestering innocent persons
even in non-cognizable offences, on their own, without taking prior
CRL.M.C.642/2009 Page 3 of 8
permission of the concerned court; such misuse of power by the
police can cause undue harassment to the public.
10. Arguments have been rebutted by the learned counsel for
the State. The learned counsel for the State has drawn the
attention of the court to the judgment in Dr.Kamal Kishore Kalra
vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 151 (2008) DLT 546 wherein all the
aforestated judgments relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner
had been dealt with and the court in the said judgment had held
that where the FIR had disclosed offences both cognizable and
non-cognizable but the course of the investigation had resulted in
the cognizance being taken only of a non-cognizable offence and
the cognizable offence having been dropped, yet the proceedings
would not stand vitiated as the bar of Section 155 of the Cr.PC
would not be attracted. The judgments relied upon by the
petitioner had been discussed and distinguished; reliance had
been placed upon the provisions of Section 2 (d) of the Cr.PC i.e.
the definition of a „complaint‟ and the explanation attached to it.
Provisions of Section 155 (4) of the Cr.PC had also been relied
upon to draw support.
11. Rival contentions of the parties have been heard and the
record has been perused. The law as cited has also been
appreciated.
12. In Dr.Kamal Kishore Kalra‟s case (supra) all the aforestated
judgments i.e. Mam Chand & Ors. vs. State 1999 (2) JCC (Delhi)
CRL.M.C.642/2009 Page 4 of 8
334, Ajit Singh vs. State 39 (1989) DLT 468, Surender Kumar vs.
State 1997 JCC 45 and Brahm Dutt & Ors. vs. State & Ors. 1996
JCC 183 have been discussed and distinguished. Before adverting
to the ratio as laid down in the aforestated judgment it would be
necessary to examine the contents of the present FIR.
13. The present FIR i.e. FIR no.395/1999 had been registered
under Section 272/273/328 of the IPC. This was on a complaint
that some persons had purchased gulab jamun/sweets from the
sweet shop of the petitioner pursuant to which they had felt giddy
and had started vomiting. The FIR had been registered under
Section 272/273/328 of the IPC. In the course of the investigation
a sample of the gulab jamun had been sent to the laboratory for
examination wherein it had been opined to contain poison i.e. the
presence of mycotoxins had been detected. Charge-sheet was
accordingly filed. The additional Sessions Judge had however
discharged the petitioner for the offence under Section 328 of the
IPC. Admittedly the prima facie averments made in the complaint
had disclosed the ingredients of both a cognizable as also a non-
cognizable offence; cognizable offence being the offence under
Section 328 of the IPC and the non-cognizable offences being the
offences under Section 272/273 of the IPC.
14. Section 2 (d) of the Cr.PC defines a complaint; it inter alia
reads as:
(d) “complaint” means any allegation made orally or in
writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this
CRL.M.C.642/2009 Page 5 of 8
Code, that some persons, whether known or unknown, has
committed an offence, but does not include a police report.
Explanation. – A report made by a police officer in a case
which discloses, after investigation, the commission of a non-
cognizable offence shall be deemed to be a complaint; and the
police officer by whom such report is made shall be deemed to be
the complainant;
15. The explanation attached to this section clearly pre-supposes
a situation that where initially a charge-sheet has been filed for
both a cognizable as also a non-cognizable offence and thereafter
the proceedings in the cognizable offence are dropped, the same
shall be deemed to be treated as a complaint and the police officer
by whom such a report is made shall be deemed to be the
complainant. This is clearly so in the instant case. Proceedings
for the cognizable offence having been dropped/discharged, the
charge-sheet has to be treated as a complaint under Section 2 (d)
of the Code and the police officer who has filed the charge-sheet
has to be treated as the complainant. It was on this complaint that
the cognizance under Section 272/273 of the IPC had been taken
which the Magistrate was empowered to do so under Section 190
(1) (a) of the Cr.PC.
16. Sub-clause (4) of Section 155 of the Cr.PC inter alia reads as
follows:
(4) Where a case relates to two or more offences of which
at least one is cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be a
cognizable, notwithstanding that the other offences are non-
cognizable.
The bar of Section 155 (2) of the Code is not attracted.
CRL.M.C.642/2009 Page 6 of 8
17. Under Section 460 of the Cr.PC there are certain category of
irregularities which do not vitiate the proceedings i.e. those
proceedings which are erroneously done but in good faith. Such
proceedings are not liable to be set aside on the ground that the
Magistrate was not empowered to do so and clause (e) of Section
460 of the Cr.PC includes the power.
(e) To take cognizance of an offence under clause (a) or
clause (b) of sub section (1) of Section 190.
18. The aforestated legislative provisions clearly answer the
queries of the petitioner. This court also draw support from the
decision of a Coordinate Bench of this court rendered in Chaman
Prakash v. State 2007 (3) JCC 1983. Para 8 inter alia reads as:
“8. I am not persuaded to accept the line of reasoning in the
cases cited on behalf of the petitioner. Undoubtedly there are
certain observations in those cases suggestive of the entire
investigation being vitiated if the court discovering, at a later
stage that no cognizable offence is made out. However each case
had to be decided on the facts and attendant circumstances. In
this case the court in the first instance did not accept the
submission that only a non-cognizable offence was made out.
Further Section 460 (2) lists out irregularities which vitiate the
proceedings. A reading of this would show that if the Magistrate
proceeds to make an order to investigate the offence, under
Section 155 into the incident which may turn out to be one
involving a non- cognizable offence, that does not by itself vitiate
the proceedings. This is further strengthened by 155 (4), which
provides that if two offences, one non-cognizable, and the other
cognizable, are alleged, the case shall be deemed to be a
cognizable case, notwithstanding that the other offences are non-
cognizable. Such being the situation investigation and further
proceedings in respect of an FIR, where eventually only non-
cognizable offences can be pressed, would not vitiate the entire
proceedings. There is no taint of illegality attached to the
investigation. This aspect was not discussed in the judgments
cited; they did not consider the impact and effect of Section 460,
or Section 155 (4).”
CRL.M.C.642/2009 Page 7 of 8
19. This petition is without any merit; it is dismissed.
(INDERMEET KAUR)
JUDGE
th
11 December, 2009
rb
CRL.M.C.642/2009 Page 8 of 8
th
Judgment Reserved on: 09 December, 2009
th
% Judgment Delivered on: 11 December, 2009
+ CRL.M.C.642/2009
NAWAL KISHORE ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Harish Khanna, Adv.
versus
THE STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Manoj Ohri, APP for State
with SI O.P.Mandal, PS Kirti
Nagar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
Digest? Yes
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
1. By way of this petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing of
FIR no.395/1999 registered under Section 272/273/328 of the IPC
at PS Kirti Nagar against the present petitioner.
2. Allegations in the complaint were that some persons had
purchased Gulab Jamun from the Corner Sweet Shop of the
petitioner at Corporation Market, Ramesh Nagar. On consumption
they felt giddy and vomited. Samples were drawn by the police.
3. The public analyst vide report dated 13.9.1999 had opined
the sample to be adulterated as containing mycotoxins.
CRL.M.C.642/2009 Page 1 of 8
4. Charge-sheet was filed on 20.12.1999 under Section 272/273
and 328 of the IPC. Since the offence under Section 328 of the
IPC was triable exclusively by the Sessions Court, the matter was
committed to the Additional Sessions Judge.
5. On 25.11.2000, the Additional Sessions Judge had
discharged the petitioner for the offence under Section 328 of the
IPC and the case was remanded back to the court of ACMM to deal
with the charge-sheet for the offences under Section 272/273 of
the IPC. Notice was framed under the aforestated provisions of
law i.e under Section 272/273 of the IPC.
6. On 29.11.2007, a revision petition was preferred before the
court of Additional Sessions Judge against the framing of notice.
The argument propounded was that since the charge-sheet had
been filed for a cognizable offence as also for a non-cognizable
office but court having discharged the petitioner for a cognizable
offence and the charge having been framed only for a non-
cognizable offence the trial stood vitiated as the procedure under
Section 155 of the Cr.PC of taking prior permission to investigate
a non-cognizable offence not having been taken, the trial stood
vitiated. Revision petition has been dismissed on 2.12.2008.
7. Petitioner has impugned this order by invoking the inherent
powers of the High Court.
8. The short argument addressed before this court is that the
charge-sheet in this case had admittedly been filed under Section
CRL.M.C.642/2009 Page 2 of 8
328/272/273 of the IPC i.e. for both a cognizable and a non-
cognizable offence; the petitioner had however been discharged
for the cognizable offence i.e. for the offence under Section 328 of
the IPC and notice had been framed against him only for a non-
cognizable office i.e. for the offence under Section 272/273 of the
IPC; the procedure as mandated under Section 155 of the Cr.PC
i.e. prior permission not having been taken by the investigating
officer to investigate a non-cognizable offence the trial in
pursuance of such a charge-sheet stands vitiated; proceeding are
liable to be quashed.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon
judgment of this court reported in Mam Chand & Ors. vs. State
1999 (2) JCC (Delhi) 334, Ajit Singh vs. State 39 (1989) DLT 468,
Surender Kumar vs. State 1997 JCC 45 and Brahm Dutt & Ors. vs.
State & Ors. 1996 JCC 183. It is submitted that in view of the
clear-cut ratio laid down in the aforestated judgments since
requisite permission under Section 155 of the Cr.PC had not been
taken and the petitioner having been discharged for a cognizable
offence, trial for a non-cognizable offence could not now proceed.
It is submitted that this protection has been afforded to the public
against the high handedness of police officials who would be given
a long rope to start investigation and pestering innocent persons
even in non-cognizable offences, on their own, without taking prior
CRL.M.C.642/2009 Page 3 of 8
permission of the concerned court; such misuse of power by the
police can cause undue harassment to the public.
10. Arguments have been rebutted by the learned counsel for
the State. The learned counsel for the State has drawn the
attention of the court to the judgment in Dr.Kamal Kishore Kalra
vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 151 (2008) DLT 546 wherein all the
aforestated judgments relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner
had been dealt with and the court in the said judgment had held
that where the FIR had disclosed offences both cognizable and
non-cognizable but the course of the investigation had resulted in
the cognizance being taken only of a non-cognizable offence and
the cognizable offence having been dropped, yet the proceedings
would not stand vitiated as the bar of Section 155 of the Cr.PC
would not be attracted. The judgments relied upon by the
petitioner had been discussed and distinguished; reliance had
been placed upon the provisions of Section 2 (d) of the Cr.PC i.e.
the definition of a „complaint‟ and the explanation attached to it.
Provisions of Section 155 (4) of the Cr.PC had also been relied
upon to draw support.
11. Rival contentions of the parties have been heard and the
record has been perused. The law as cited has also been
appreciated.
12. In Dr.Kamal Kishore Kalra‟s case (supra) all the aforestated
judgments i.e. Mam Chand & Ors. vs. State 1999 (2) JCC (Delhi)
CRL.M.C.642/2009 Page 4 of 8
334, Ajit Singh vs. State 39 (1989) DLT 468, Surender Kumar vs.
State 1997 JCC 45 and Brahm Dutt & Ors. vs. State & Ors. 1996
JCC 183 have been discussed and distinguished. Before adverting
to the ratio as laid down in the aforestated judgment it would be
necessary to examine the contents of the present FIR.
13. The present FIR i.e. FIR no.395/1999 had been registered
under Section 272/273/328 of the IPC. This was on a complaint
that some persons had purchased gulab jamun/sweets from the
sweet shop of the petitioner pursuant to which they had felt giddy
and had started vomiting. The FIR had been registered under
Section 272/273/328 of the IPC. In the course of the investigation
a sample of the gulab jamun had been sent to the laboratory for
examination wherein it had been opined to contain poison i.e. the
presence of mycotoxins had been detected. Charge-sheet was
accordingly filed. The additional Sessions Judge had however
discharged the petitioner for the offence under Section 328 of the
IPC. Admittedly the prima facie averments made in the complaint
had disclosed the ingredients of both a cognizable as also a non-
cognizable offence; cognizable offence being the offence under
Section 328 of the IPC and the non-cognizable offences being the
offences under Section 272/273 of the IPC.
14. Section 2 (d) of the Cr.PC defines a complaint; it inter alia
reads as:
(d) “complaint” means any allegation made orally or in
writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this
CRL.M.C.642/2009 Page 5 of 8
Code, that some persons, whether known or unknown, has
committed an offence, but does not include a police report.
Explanation. – A report made by a police officer in a case
which discloses, after investigation, the commission of a non-
cognizable offence shall be deemed to be a complaint; and the
police officer by whom such report is made shall be deemed to be
the complainant;
15. The explanation attached to this section clearly pre-supposes
a situation that where initially a charge-sheet has been filed for
both a cognizable as also a non-cognizable offence and thereafter
the proceedings in the cognizable offence are dropped, the same
shall be deemed to be treated as a complaint and the police officer
by whom such a report is made shall be deemed to be the
complainant. This is clearly so in the instant case. Proceedings
for the cognizable offence having been dropped/discharged, the
charge-sheet has to be treated as a complaint under Section 2 (d)
of the Code and the police officer who has filed the charge-sheet
has to be treated as the complainant. It was on this complaint that
the cognizance under Section 272/273 of the IPC had been taken
which the Magistrate was empowered to do so under Section 190
(1) (a) of the Cr.PC.
16. Sub-clause (4) of Section 155 of the Cr.PC inter alia reads as
follows:
(4) Where a case relates to two or more offences of which
at least one is cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be a
cognizable, notwithstanding that the other offences are non-
cognizable.
The bar of Section 155 (2) of the Code is not attracted.
CRL.M.C.642/2009 Page 6 of 8
17. Under Section 460 of the Cr.PC there are certain category of
irregularities which do not vitiate the proceedings i.e. those
proceedings which are erroneously done but in good faith. Such
proceedings are not liable to be set aside on the ground that the
Magistrate was not empowered to do so and clause (e) of Section
460 of the Cr.PC includes the power.
(e) To take cognizance of an offence under clause (a) or
clause (b) of sub section (1) of Section 190.
18. The aforestated legislative provisions clearly answer the
queries of the petitioner. This court also draw support from the
decision of a Coordinate Bench of this court rendered in Chaman
Prakash v. State 2007 (3) JCC 1983. Para 8 inter alia reads as:
“8. I am not persuaded to accept the line of reasoning in the
cases cited on behalf of the petitioner. Undoubtedly there are
certain observations in those cases suggestive of the entire
investigation being vitiated if the court discovering, at a later
stage that no cognizable offence is made out. However each case
had to be decided on the facts and attendant circumstances. In
this case the court in the first instance did not accept the
submission that only a non-cognizable offence was made out.
Further Section 460 (2) lists out irregularities which vitiate the
proceedings. A reading of this would show that if the Magistrate
proceeds to make an order to investigate the offence, under
Section 155 into the incident which may turn out to be one
involving a non- cognizable offence, that does not by itself vitiate
the proceedings. This is further strengthened by 155 (4), which
provides that if two offences, one non-cognizable, and the other
cognizable, are alleged, the case shall be deemed to be a
cognizable case, notwithstanding that the other offences are non-
cognizable. Such being the situation investigation and further
proceedings in respect of an FIR, where eventually only non-
cognizable offences can be pressed, would not vitiate the entire
proceedings. There is no taint of illegality attached to the
investigation. This aspect was not discussed in the judgments
cited; they did not consider the impact and effect of Section 460,
or Section 155 (4).”
CRL.M.C.642/2009 Page 7 of 8
19. This petition is without any merit; it is dismissed.
(INDERMEET KAUR)
JUDGE
th
11 December, 2009
rb
CRL.M.C.642/2009 Page 8 of 8