Court Emphasizes Limited Use of Section 482 Cr.P.C Powers and Compliance with Section 195 Cr.P.C at Trial Stage
In a significant ruling, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court, Srinagar Bench, dismissed a petition filed by Mushtaq Ahmad Ganie seeking the quashment of an FIR registered against him for allegedly violating COVID-19 lockdown restrictions in Bandipora district. The petitioner, claiming to be a journalist, was accused of moving in violation of Section 144 Cr.P.C restrictions and assaulting police personnel during the enforcement of the said lockdown.
The case, presided over by Justice Shahzad Azeem, revolved around the invocation of the court’s jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C, which allows for inherent powers to make orders necessary to prevent abuse of process or secure ends of justice. However, the court underscored that this jurisdiction is not meant to be exercised liberally, especially at pre-cognizance stages, and should be reserved for situations of dire necessity.
The court addressed the petitioner’s contention regarding the applicability of Section 195 Cr.P.C, which mandates that no court shall take cognizance of certain offences, including those under Section 188 IPC, unless there is a written complaint by the concerned public servant. The High Court clarified that while Section 195 Cr.P.C prohibits cognizance without such a complaint, it does not bar the registration of an FIR or investigation of the offence. The prohibition applies only at the stage of taking cognizance, which is the purview of the trial court.
Justice Azeem pointed out that the petitioner approached the court prematurely, at a pre-cognizance stage, and emphasized that issues regarding Section 195 Cr.P.C compliance are to be raised during charge/discharge hearings before the trial court. The court also noted that the trial court has the jurisdiction to frame or alter charges under Section 216 Cr.P.C based on the material collected during investigation, and it is not bound by the investigating officer’s assessment.
Furthermore, the court highlighted Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which allows for prosecution under multiple enactments but prohibits double punishment for the same act. The prosecution has the discretion to choose applicable enactments, reinforcing the trial court’s role in examining the material collected during investigation to determine prima facie evidence of alleged offences.
In dismissing the petition, the High Court emphasized that the petitioner’s allegations and assertions are matters for trial, not for determination at the pre-cognizance stage. The trial court was instructed to proceed with the trial independently and without delay, with the assurance that the High Court’s observations should not influence the trial court’s decision-making process.
The judgment reaffirms the procedural integrity of criminal proceedings and underscores the importance of adhering to statutory provisions, particularly in cases involving public health and safety during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Bottom Line:
Section 482 Cr.P.C jurisdiction must be sparingly exercised and is not applicable to pre-cognizance stages. Compliance with Section 195 Cr.P.C must be examined at the trial stage, and factual assertions should be addressed during charge/discharge hearings.
Statutory provision(s): Section 482 Cr.P.C, Section 195 Cr.P.C, Section 144 Cr.P.C, Section 188 IPC, Section 269 IPC, Section 353 IPC, Section 216 Cr.P.C, Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.
