Summary
The Court restored a prosecution arising from an allegedly false motor-accident claim, holding that Section 195(1)(a) did not defeat cognizance where the High Court itself had directed the relevant investigation in public interest. It treated that direction as satisfying the protective purpose of the statutory complaint requirement. It did not decide the accused advocate’s guilt.
Issues
- Whether the Section 195(1)(a) complaint bar required quashing proceedings arising from the High Court-directed investigation.
Provisions considered
- Section 195(1)(a), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The mandatory protection against private vexatious prosecutions was satisfied in the circumstances by the High Court’s direction to investigate the specified offence. (¶¶ 7, 11)
Held
- The bar is mandatory but must be construed in light of its purpose of preventing false or frivolous private prosecutions, rather than extinguishing a remedy for crime. The public-servant/superior expression could not exclude the High Court in this setting. (¶ 11)
- The High Court’s public-interest direction implicitly required examination of the offence and stood at par with a superior public servant’s written-complaint direction. Section 195(1)(a) could not render that investigation direction futile. (¶ 11–12)
Result
CBI appeals allowed; High Court quashing order set aside and proceedings restored, to be concluded as far as possible within six months.