Delhi High Court: Charges under Section 174-A IPC Quashed Due to Lack of Written Complaint; Court Finds Maneesh Goomer Flawed in Light of Supreme Court’s C. Muniappan Decision and Conflicting High Court Rulings

Court’s Decision:

The Delhi High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the Sessions Court’s order, which relied on Maneesh Goomer v. State. The High Court found that Maneesh Goomer had overlooked the Supreme Court’s precedent in C. Muniappan & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu, which mandates that cognizance of offenses under Sections 172-188 IPC, including Section 174-A IPC, can only be taken on a written complaint by a public servant, as required by Section 195 Cr.P.C.

The court noted that various High Courts, including Allahabad, Punjab and Haryana, Madras, and Himachal Pradesh, had similarly held that a charge under Section 174-A IPC requires such a complaint, not just a police report or charge-sheet. The recent Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) laws excluded Section 174-A IPC from this requirement, but these changes are prospective and don’t affect the present case.

As a result, the court quashed the charges under Section 174-A IPC, ruling that the Sessions Court had erred by not following binding precedent.

Facts:

A complaint case was filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Processes were issued under Section 82-83 Cr.P.C., and the Trial Court ordered the registration of an FIR under Section 174-A IPC against the accused. Charges were framed against the accused under Section 174-A IPC. The petitioners challenged these charges based on the bar under Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C., which they argued applied to their case.

Issues:

Whether the charges under Section 174-A IPC could be sustained despite the bar under Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C.
Whether cognizance could be taken without a written complaint from the concerned public servant as required by Section 195 Cr.P.C.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

The petitioners argued that cognizance of the offense under Section 174-A IPC could not be taken without a complaint in writing from the public servant as required by Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C. They relied on various decisions from different High Courts and the Supreme Court to support their contention that Maneesh Goomer was wrongly decided.

Respondent’s Arguments:

The respondents relied on the decision in Maneesh Goomer to argue that the bar under Section 195 Cr.P.C. did not apply to Section 174-A IPC. They argued that the charge-sheet and FIR filed by the police were valid and the Sessions Court was correct in its decision.

Analysis of the Law:

The court considered conflicting decisions on whether Section 174-A IPC falls under the bar of Section 195 Cr.P.C. It observed that the Supreme Court’s decision in C. Muniappan emphasized that Section 195 Cr.P.C. imposes a mandatory requirement of a written complaint for certain offenses, including those under Sections 172-188 IPC. Given this, the court questioned the rationale behind Maneesh Goomer and found the reasoning in other High Court decisions more persuasive.

Precedent Analysis:

The court referred to decisions from the Allahabad High Court, Punjab and Haryana High Court, Madras High Court, and Himachal Pradesh High Court, all of which differed with Maneesh Goomer and held that Section 174-A IPC falls under the purview of Section 195 Cr.P.C.

Court’s Reasoning:

The court emphasized that the legislature had consciously chosen not to amend Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C. when introducing Section 174-A IPC, meaning that the provision should be subject to the same bar as other offenses in Sections 172-188 IPC. The court also noted that in recent legislative developments, Section 174-A IPC’s equivalent provision in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, was explicitly excluded from the bar in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, indicating a legislative intent that did not previously exist.

Conclusion:

The impugned order relying on Maneesh Goomer was set aside, and the petition was allowed. The court concluded that the charge under Section 174-A IPC could not be sustained without a written complaint from the concerned public servant, as mandated by Section 195 Cr.P.C.