2015 Sacrilege Incident | P&H High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Ex-MLA, Says Bar U/S 195 CrPC Only Arises At Cognisance Stage

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has declined to quash 2015 FIR, registered against former MLA Simarjeet Singh Bains and others, arising out of a protest related to the 2015 Bargari sacrilege incident.Section 195 CrPC prevents courts from taking cognizance for specific offenses, primarily those against public justice (like perjury, forgery in court) or contempt of lawful authority (like obstructing public servants), unless a complaint is filed by the public servant or court involved, to prevent frivolous private prosecutions and maintain judicial integrity. The Court held that the bar contained in Section 195 CrPC is attracted only at the stage of taking cognizance by the Magistrate, not at the stage of FIR or investigation.Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya said, "the procedural compliance is to be seen at the time of taking cognizance of offences by the Magistrate, and that stage has not reached as yet. Therefore, the perceived non-compliance with the provisions of this section is no ground to seek quashing of the FIR in question at this stage."Following the sacrilege of Sri Guru Granth Sahib at Bargari in 2015 and subsequent protests including the violent incidents at Kotkapura and Behbal Kalan, various demonstrations were held across Punjab, including one at Ludhiana allegedly led by petitioner-accused Simarjeet Singh Bains.On the complaint of the Assistant Commissioner, Police Control Room, Ludhiana, an FIR was lodged alleging that Bains and his associates violated prohibitory orders under Section 144 CrPC, obstructed police officials, and attempted to escape arrest by directing his driver to “run the vehicle over the police party”.The petition sought quashing of the FIR, the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class passed in 2019 directing further investigation, and the supplementary chargesheet under Section 173(8) CrPC dated 07.09.2021.The Court observed that although the inquiry commission recommended cancellation, its recommendations were not binding on the Magistrate, and the direction for further investigation could not be faulted.The Court framed a specific issue regarding the stage at which compliance with Section 195 CrPC becomes mandatory.Relying on the Supreme Court's recent judgment in Devendra Kumar, it held:Section 195 creates a bar only on the Court taking cognizance, not on lodging of FIR, investigation, or filing of chargesheet.Referring to Supreme Court decision in Devendra Kumar case the Court said, "It (Supreme Court) laid down that the bar created under Section 195 Cr.P.C. is on taking cognizance of the offences mentioned in Chapter XIV of the Code in the absence of complaint in writing by a public servant, and not on registration or investigation of a case by the police. Therefore, the stage of complying with the procedure mandated in the section is when cognizance of the offence is to be taken by the Court, and not at the time of lodging of the FIR." Thus the Court said that the arguments based on non-compliance of Section 195 CrPC were premature.Mr. A. P. S. Deol, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vishal R. Lamba, Advocate,Mr. Arun Goyat, Advocate, Advocate and Ms. Dilpreet Kaur, Advocatefor the petitioners.Title: Daljit Singh Grewal alias Bhola and others v. State of Punjab and othersClick here to read order

2015 Sacrilege Incident | P&H High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Ex-MLA, Says Bar U/S 195 CrPC Only Arises At Cognisance Stage

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags