DT
PT
Subscribe To Print Edition About The Tribune Code Of Ethics Download App Advertise with us Classifieds
Add Tribune As Your Trusted Source
search-icon-img
search-icon-img
Advertisement

Bargari protest case: HC declines bid to quash FIR against ex-MLA Simarjeet Bains

Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya makes it clear that contentions regarding non-compliance with the mandatory procedure under Section 195 of the CrPC could not be invoked at the FIR stage to seek quashing of proceedings

  • fb
  • twitter
  • whatsapp
  • whatsapp
featured-img featured-img
Photo for representational purpose only.
Advertisement

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to quash at the current stage an FIR registered against former MLA Simarjeet Singh Bains and others following a protest related to the 2015 Bargari sacrilege incident.

Advertisement

Disposing of a petition, Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya made it clear that contentions regarding non-compliance with the mandatory procedure under Section 195 of the CrPC could not be invoked at the FIR stage to seek quashing of proceedings.

Advertisement

Section 195 restricts the courts from taking cognizance of certain offences like contempt of lawful authority, offences against public justice, and forgery of documents used as evidence, unless a complaint is made — among others — by the court itself or the public servant involved

Advertisement

The petitioners before the Bench were seeking the quashing of the FIR registered on October 21, 2015, the order directing further investigation, and the subsequent supplementary report. The Bench observed one of the questions raised before the court related to compliance of mandatory procedure laid down under Section 195 CrPC. Referring to the Supreme Court ruling in Devendra Kumar case, Justice Dahiya asserted “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. The Court asserted the petitioners would be free to raise the objection before the trial court when cognizance was taken.

“In terms of the settled proposition of law, 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. The petition is disposed of, giving liberty to the petitioners to raise the issue regarding bar of Section 195 CrPC before the trial Court at appropriate stage, if so advised,” the Bench concluded.

Advertisement

 

Read what others don’t see with The Tribune Premium

  • Thought-provoking Opinions
  • Expert Analysis
  • Ad-free on web and app
  • In-depth Insights
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
tlbr_img1 Classifieds tlbr_img2 Videos tlbr_img3 Premium tlbr_img4 E-Paper tlbr_img5 Shorts