Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

STATE OF PUNJAB versus RAJ SINGH AND ANR.

Decided
16 January 1998
Judges listed
M.K. MUKHERJEE, K.T. THOMAS (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1998] 1 S.C.R. 223 · 1998 INSC 28
Also cited as
  • (1998) SCC(CRI) 642 (4 citing judgments)
  • (1998) 2 SCC 391 (2 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
3 other citation strings that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 2 other Supreme Court judgments we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Leave granted. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

p. 223, margin F

We are unable to sustain the impugned order of the High Court quashing the F.l.R. Lodged against the respondents alleging commission of offences under Sections 419, 420, 467 and 468 1.P.C. by them in course of the proceeding of a civil suit, on the ground that Section 195 (!) (b) (ii) Cr. P.C. prohibited entertainment of and investigation into the same by the police. From a plain reading of Section 195 Cr.P.C. it is manifest that it comes into operation at the stage when the Court intends to take cognizance of an offence under Section 190( I) Cr.'.P.C.; and it has 'nothing to do with the statutory power of the police to investigate into an F.l.R. which discloses a cognisable offence, in accordance with Chapter XII of the Code even if the offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in Court. In other words, the statutory power of the Police to investigate under the Code is not in any way controlled or circumscribed by Section 195 Cr.P.C. It is of course true that upon the charge-sheet (challan), if any, filed on completion of the investigation into such an offence the Court would not be competent to take cognizance thereof in view of the embargo of Section 195(1) (b) Cr. P.C., but nothing therein deters the Court from filing a complaint for the offence on the basis of the F.J.R. (filed by the aggrieved private party) and the materials collected during investigation, provided it forms the requisite opinion and follows the procedure laid down tin section 340 Cr. P.C. The judgment of this Court in Gopal Krishna Menon and Anr. v. D. Raja Reddy, AIR (1983) SC 1053, on which the High Court relied, has no manner of application to the facts of the instant case for there cognizance was taken on a private complaint even though the offence of forgery was committed in respect of a money receipt produced in the Civil Court and hence it was held that the Court could not take cognizance on such a complaint in view of Section 195 Cr. P.C.

pp. 223–224, margin G

For the foregoing reasons, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order. RP. Appeal allowed.

p. 224, margin D