The Court was hearing a plea by Raju under Section 482 CrPC to quash the case against him.
It was Raju’s argument that the crucial piece of “underwear evidence” was in the custody of the trial court while it was allegedly tampered with and, therefore, it should have been the court in question that initiated the proceedings to look into the same. However, in this case, the proceedings were initiated on the complaint of the police.
“However, in the case of the petitioner, the prosecution has been initiated by the Police and not by the Court, which is per se illegal and the Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offense if the complaint is not by the Court, as the offense is alleged is section 193 of the IPC,” the plea said.
He submitted that Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) creates a bar in taking cognizance of the complaint filed by the Police and no court shall take cognizance of the offense under section 193 of the Indian Penal Code except upon a complaint filed by the Court.
Further, it is argued that Sections 340 and 341 CrPC state that the court is not bound to make a complaint regarding the commission of an offense referred to in Section 195(1)(b), as the court must judge if the same has a significant impact on the administration of justice.
“There are patent illegalities in the procedures adopted by the administration wing of this Hon’ble Court, by the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram and the Police in the matter, and same has commenced and completed ignoring the bar created under the s. 195 (1) (b) of the Code and procedure stated in Section 340 of the Code,” the plea stated.
Source: Barandbench
