Phool Chand JaIn Vs. State

Phool Chand Jain vs State

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Feb 19, 1987

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/688796

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/688796
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Malik Sharief-ud-Din, J.
Decided On: Feb 19, 1987
Case Number: Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) Appeal No. 558 of 1986
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

a) The case examined the cognizance without jurisdiction under Section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - It was held that where the Court was not competent to take cognizance on account of a bar such as Section 195 of the Code, the cognizance taken by the Court would be of no cognizance in the eyes of law.b...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Acts & sections: Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 186; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 468

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Phool Chand Jain

Advocate K.K. Sud and; Rajiv Chauhan, Advs

Respondent

State

Legal References

Acts: Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 186; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 468
Reported In: 1988(1)ARBLR308(Delhi); 1987(2)Crimes567; 32(1987)DLT4

Excerpt

a) the case examined the cognizance without jurisdiction under section 190 of the criminal procedure code, 1973 - it was held that where the court was not competent to take cognizance on account of a bar such as section 195 of the code, the cognizance taken by the court would be of no cognizance in the eyes of law.b) the case debated over a compliant that was filed for prosecution under section 186 of the indian penal code and was filed after the prescribed period of one year - it was held that the compliant was liable to be dismissed as time barred under section 468 of the criminal procedure code, 1973. - .....a formal complaint.(3) it is necessary at this stage to notice certain dates which are important for the disposal of the petition. the offence was committed on 22nd of march 1980. the accused was arrested on 30th october, 1980 and the chargesheet was produced by the police in court on 17.1.1981. the petitioner was discharged on 3.5.83 while complaint was filed on 19th may 1983. it would be noticed that there was no complaint filed before the court on 17.1.1981 and the chargesheet filed by the police was dismissed as the court could not take cognizance except on a complaint in writing by the public servant or his superior as envisaged by section 195 cr. p.c. it would thus be seen that if the court was not competent to take cognizance, it would be no cognizance in the eyes of law. in fact, the court had specifically said that it is incompetent to take cognizance in the absence of complaint in writing. the complaint ultimately awoke only after the petitioner was discharged and filed complaint on 19.5.1983 which is beyond the period of limitation of one year as prescribed by section 468 cr.p.c. the offence having been committed on 22nd of march 1980, the complaint should have been filed at the most by 22nd of march 1981. in that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 17th of february, 1986 issuing notice to the petitioner under section 251 cr. p.c. is quashed. the petition is allowed and the petitioner shall stand discharged.

Full Judgment

Malik Sharief-ud-Din, J.

(1) Mr. Sud was heard. The petitioner was prosecuted on a police report under Section 186 Indian Penal Code . but the learned Magistrate has discharged him by his order dated May 3, 1983 after holding that Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was a bar to the taking of cognizance unless the complaint is made by the public servant himself or by his immediate superior.

(2) Pursuant to this a complaint was subsequently made which came up before Shri. D.R. Jain, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. An argument was raised before the learned Magistrate that the complaint was time-barred envisaged by section 468 C.r P.C. The learned the magistrate, however, seems to have fallen in an error and by curious reasoning dismissed the argument and decided to proceed in the matter and take cognizance by his order dated 17.2.86. According to him the cognizance of the case will be deemed to have been taken when the earlier challan was produced before the Magistrate which was dismissed for want of a formal complaint.

(3) It is necessary at this stage to notice certain dates which are important for the disposal of the petition. The offence was committed on 22nd of March 1980. The accused was arrested on 30th October, 1980 and the chargesheet was produced by the police in court on 17.1.1981. The petitioner was discharged on 3.5.83 while complaint was filed on 19th May 1983. It would be noticed that there was no complaint filed before the court on 17.1.1981 and the chargesheet filed by the police was dismissed as the court could not take cognizance except on a complaint in writing by the public servant or his superior as envisaged by Section 195 Cr. P.C. It would thus be seen that if the court was not competent to take cognizance, it would be no cognizance in the eyes of law. In fact, the court had specifically said that it is incompetent to take cognizance in the absence of complaint in writing. The complaint ultimately awoke only after the petitioner was discharged and filed complaint on 19.5.1983 which is beyond the period of limitation of one year as prescribed by Section 468 Cr.P.C. The offence having been committed on 22nd of March 1980, the complaint should have been filed at the most by 22nd of March 1981. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 17th of February, 1986 issuing notice to the petitioner under section 251 Cr. P.C. is quashed. The petition is allowed and the petitioner shall stand discharged.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 1987 Same Parties Phool Chand Jain vs State Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Malik Sharief-ud-Din, J. Acts & Sections Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 186; Code of Crimina...

Criminal