Police Power to Investigate not curtailed by Judicial Record Embargo: Rajasthan HC

The Rajasthan High Court has fortified the statutory power of the police to investigate cognizable offences involving alleged forgery of court records, ruling that the procedural bar against taking judicial cognizance does not freeze criminal probes at the threshold.

A single-judge bench of Justice Sunil Beniwal heard two connected petitions, one by a complainant seeking a fair probe and another by the accused seeking the quashing of an FIR registered under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Pipar City. The dispute centered around allegations that revenue officials and private parties conspired to fabricate a service report to obtain ex-parte orders in land proceedings.

Key Takeaways

Investigation Unfettered by Cognizance Bars

Section 195 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not prevent the police from investigating an FIR disclosing cognizable offences, even if the alleged forgery relates to a document produced in court proceedings.

Wider Conspiracy Overcomes Procedural Shields

When allegations extend beyond a single forged court document to include a broader scheme of wrongful gain and land alteration, the entire FIR cannot be quashed by isolating one piece of evidence.

Revenue Orders Not Absolute Immunity

Parallel findings by revenue authorities regarding the validity of service do not conclusively determine criminal liability or extinguish the statutory power of the police to probe fraud.

Police Authority to Probe Judicial Document Forgery

The accused argued that since the alleged false service report was part of a Revenue Court's record, the prosecution was barred by Section 195(1)(b) of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which requires a written complaint from the concerned court for prosecution. However, the Rajasthan High Court rejected this premise, noting that the police's power to investigate under Chapter XII of the Code remains independent of the court's power to take cognizance.

The Rajasthan High Court observed that "From a plain reading of Section 195 Cr.P.C. it is manifest that it comes into operation at the stage when the Court intends to take cognizance of an offence under Section 190(1) Cr. P.C.; and it has nothing to do with the statutory power of the police to investigate into an F.I.R. which discloses a cognisable offence... even if the offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in Court."

Role of Section 340 and Independent Cognizable Offences

The Rajasthan High Court further clarified that the existence of a statutory mechanism under Section 340 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (corresponding to Section 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) for courts to initiate inquiries into offences affecting the administration of justice does not render a police investigation into independent cognizable offences without jurisdiction. The Bench emphasized that the validity of service is not co-extensive with the entire criminal accusation, especially when the prosecution case attributes a broader role to the accused in altering revenue maps and causing wrongful loss.

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the petitions while noting the fact that investigation has substantially progressed, avoiding to issue any direction to the Investigating Officer to investiagte in a particular manner or arrive at a predetermined conclusion.

Ratio

The statutory power of the police to investigate a cognizable offence under the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is not controlled or circumscribed by the embargo under Section 195 Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973. While the court may be restricted from taking cognizance of offences related to documents in judicial proceedings without a formal court complaint, this procedural requirement does not deter the police from conducting a full investigation into the FIR and collecting material to form a requisite opinion for further legal action.

Background

The petitioner in the quashing petition, a Revenue Inspector, was accused by the complainant of conspiring with private parties to dispossess her of 11 Bigha 2 Biswa of land at Village Jawasiya. It was alleged that a process server, in connivance with the accused, fabricated a service report claiming the complainant refused notice, leading to ex-parte revenue orders under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956.

The accused relied on State of Punjab Vs. Raj Singh and Ors. and Sachida Nand Singh Vs. State of Bihar ( "(1998) 2 SCC 493": 1998 CaseBase(SC) 726) to argue the prosecution was a circumvention of law. They also pointed to Section 114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (corresponding to Section 119 of the BSA) regarding the presumption of regularity in official acts. The State, however, produced a factual report indicating that investigation had revealed a wider role of the accused in misusing revenue records and altering maps. The Rajasthan High Court concluded that such disputed factual issues involving criminal culpability cannot be adjudicated in a quashing petition and must be determined through investigation and trial.

Case Details:
Case No.: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 8254/2026 and 2128/2024
Neutral Citation: 2026:RJ-JD:47942
Case Title: Heera Devi v. State of Rajasthan and connected matter
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Prem Singh Panwar, PP, Mr. R.S. Choudhary

Source: 2026 CaseBase(RAJ) 26009