Section 195 does not bar threshold quashing of complaints; cognizance stage remains the proper point for scrutiny.

Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was held not to justify quashing complaints or stopping investigation at the threshold, because its bar is ordinarily examined when cognizance is taken, not before a criminal inquiry can proceed. The High Court had therefore acted prematurely in preventing investigation into serious allegations, and that order was set aside. The Court also held that a pending public interest petition and the inquiry directed in relation to a judicial scandal could not be terminated summarily before the materials were considered on merits, so the order setting aside that proceeding was likewise reversed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the complaints and the investigation on the ground that Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 barred proceedings. (ii) Whether the High Court could set aside the pending public interest petition and the inquiry directed therein.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the complaints and the investigation on the ground that Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 barred further proceedings.

Analysis: The bar under Section 195 was held to be premature at the investigation stage. The Court noted that the question whether the provision applies is ordinarily to be examined when cognizance is taken, and not to stifle a criminal investigation at the threshold, especially where serious allegations are involved. The High Court had gone into the merits and thereby prevented investigation into grave complaints.

Conclusion: The quashing of the complaints and the investigation was not justified and was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court could set aside the pending public interest petition and the inquiry directed therein.

Analysis: The public interest petition related to a serious scandal concerning the functioning of a subordinate court, and the High Court itself had directed inquiry and received reports. In that situation, the extraordinary jurisdiction could not have been used to terminate the collateral proceeding before the High Court had considered the materials and issued appropriate directions on merits.

Conclusion: The order setting aside the public interest petition was erroneous and was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the impugned order was reversed, leaving the complaints, investigation, and public interest proceedings to continue in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 195 cannot be used to quash criminal complaints or halt investigation at the threshold; its bar is to be examined at the stage of cognizance, while collateral proceedings initiated for judicial inquiry should not be summarily terminated before merits are considered.

---