Whether FIR can be lodged without disclosing source of information and name of informant?
Another ground on which criminal prosecution is assailed is regarding the locus of complainant to lodge the complaint. Submission of the applicants is that FIR is lodged on the basis of source information which has never been disclosed at any time and for the offences particularly of cheating and forgery, it was incumbent on the prosecution agency to disclose the source of information and the name of informant. In support thereof, reliance is placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Joseph Salvaraja vs. State of Gujarat and others, MANU/SC/0719/2011 : (2011) 7 SCC 59 : [2011 ALL SCR 1601] and Mohammed Ibrahim and others vs. State of Bihar and another, MANU/SC/1604/2009 : (2009) 8 SCC 751.
19. On going through both the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it can be seen that the facts were not identical to the present controversy and in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the first case held that FIR was an abuse of process of law, dispute was purely of civil nature, commission of criminal offence to wreak vengeance was alleged and in such a case refusal of High Court to quash FIR under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with liberty to file discharge application was to be quashed and set aside.
In another decision, the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court were that criminal courts should ensure that criminal proceedings are not misused for settling scores or pressurising parties to settle civil disputes. The ingredients of the offence of cheating and forgery defined under Section 415 and punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, came to be reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case.
20. In the case on hand, FIR has been lodged by Superintendent of Police, CBI, Nagpur. Learned counsel refers to the provisions of Section 39 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and attempts to demonstrate that offences relating to cheating and forgery are not covered by this prevision and, therefore, it was incumbent on the aggrieved person to come forward and lodge report. Section 39 requires public to give information of certain offences and speaks that every person aware of the commission of, or of the intention of any other person to commit any offence punishable under the section mentioned in Section 39 shall forthwith give information to the nearest Magistrate or public officer of such commission or intention. The offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code are cognizable. As these offences are cognizable, offence alleged under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code is also cognizable. Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure relates to information in cognizable cases. The provisions of Section 154 of Cr.P.C. read thus:
154. Information in cognizable cases.- (1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf.
(2) A copy of the information as recorded under sub-section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant.
(3) Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in sub-section (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence.
21. The proposition of law relating to information in cognizable cases is well settled and any person orally or in writing can set criminal law into motion. In this background, we do not find any infirmity regarding the locus to lodge the report. The third contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicants is, therefore, negatived in the above background.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)
Criminal Application [Apl] Nos. 218 and 320 of 2015
Decided On: 20.03.2017
Amit Suresh Arya Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
B.R. Gavai and Indira Jain, JJ.
