Criminal prosecution from judicial enquiry survives without separate complaint, limitation objection, and later No Due Certificate challenge.

A prosecution under Section 193 IPC was challenged on the ground that no separate complaint under Section 195 CrPC had been filed, but the article states that the proceedings arose from a judicially ordered enquiry and the objection was rejected. The plea that the prosecution was barred by limitation was also rejected, as the sequence of search, challenge proceedings, enquiry and filing of the case was treated as a continuous chain of events. A later No Due Certificate was held not to invalidate an already pending criminal case, with its effect left to trial. The quashing petition therefore failed and the matter was left for trial on merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the prosecution for the offence under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was unsustainable for want of a complaint under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; (ii) whether the prosecution was barred by time; (iii) whether the issuance of a No Due Certificate rendered the criminal case unsustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the prosecution for the offence under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was unsustainable for want of a complaint under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The enquiry ordered in the course of judicial proceedings culminated in the filing of the case before the trial court. The enquiry report was treated as the basis of the complaint, and the proceedings were held to have arisen out of the judicial process itself. On that basis, the absence of a separate complaint in the manner suggested was not accepted as a ground to quash the case.

Conclusion: The objection based on Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the prosecution was barred by time.

Analysis: The materials showed a sequence of events beginning with the search and prohibitory orders, followed by challenge proceedings, enquiry, and the filing of the case. The matter was treated as a continuous chain of events connected with the petitioner's conduct, and the delay was attributed to the course of proceedings rather than to any independent lapse making the prosecution stale.

Conclusion: The plea of limitation was rejected.

Issue (iii): Whether the issuance of a No Due Certificate rendered the criminal case unsustainable.

Analysis: The Court held that once the matter was already pending and had been taken cognizance of, a later-issued No Due Certificate could not nullify the prosecution or conclude the pending judicial process. The effect of such a certificate, if any, was held to be a matter for trial, and it could not by itself defeat the criminal case.

Conclusion: The No Due Certificate did not invalidate the prosecution.

Final Conclusion: The petition for quashing failed because none of the substantive grounds established a basis to interfere with the pending criminal proceedings, and the matter was left to be tried on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: A criminal proceeding arising from a judicially ordered enquiry cannot be quashed merely because a separate complaint is not independently filed, and subsequent administrative certification does not override pending criminal proceedings where the issues remain triable.

---