Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Writ No.939 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Vinit Kumar Raj son of Ram Sevak Das, resident of Kastili, P.S- Mansur Chak, District- Begusarai. 2. Rajni Kumari wife of Vinit Kumar Raj daughter of Jai Jai Ram Kaib, resident of Makhdumpur, P.S- Mansurchak, District- Begusarai. Versus .... .... Petitioner/s 1. The State of Bihar 2. The District Magistrate, Begusarai. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Begusarai. 4. District Programme Officer, Begusarai 5. Headmaster, Madhya Vidyalya (Middle School), Makdumpur, District- Begusarai 6. Jai Jai Ram Kaib son of Ramashray Kaib, resident of Makdumpur, P.S- Mansurchak, District- Begusarai. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pramod Manbansh, Advocate For the Respondent no.6 : Mrs. Saroj Shandilya, Advocate For the State : Mr. Anjani Kumar, Sr. Advocate, A.A.G.-10 Mr. Deepak Sahay Jamuar, A.C. to A.A.G.-10 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 8 23-04-2013 One Jai Jai Ram Kaib, respondent second party, submitted a written report to the Officer-in-charge of Mansoor Chak Police Station on 28.6.2012 alleging therein that the petitioner no.1, namely, Vinit Kumar Raj, with aid of 2-3 unknown persons abducted/kidnapped his minor daughter, namely, Rajni Kumari (petitioner no.2) and confined her at some unknown place. Accordingly, Mansoor Chak P.S. Case No.63 of 2012 dated 28.6.2012 was registered under sections 363 and 366A of the Indian Penal Code (for short “the Code”) against the petitioner no.1and his 2-3 unknown persons. Patna High Court CR. WJC No.939 of 2012 (8) dt.23-04-2013 2 2. The instant application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for issuance of a direction to the respondent authorities to take action against Jai Jai Ram Kaib (respondent second party) and to institute a criminal case against him for instituting a false case in the police station.
Legal Reasoning
The petitioners have further prayed that the FIR of Mansoor Chak P.S. Case No.63 of 2012 be quashed.
Legal Reasoning
3. Mr. Pramod Manbansh, learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that the petitioners being majors liked each other. They wanted to marry together. Since they belonged to different castes, the father of petitioner no.2 was not ready to marry her with petitioner no.1. However, the petitioners being majors solemnized their marriage on 28.5.2012 as per Hindu rituals at Vidyapati Mandir, Samastipur out of their own sweet will. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondent second party being enraged due to inter caste marriage of his daughter instituted the aforesaid case with false allegations. It has further been contended that the District Administration including the police authorities are duty bound to ensure that the petitioners be not harassed or subjected to false prosecution. In order to establish the age of petitioner no.2, her Patna High Court CR. WJC No.939 of 2012 (8) dt.23-04-2013 3 school leaving certificate of Madhya Vidyala, Makdumpur has been brought on record and marked as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. In the school leaving certificate the date of birth of petitioner no.2, Rajni Kumari, has been recorded as 5.4.1994 which would make her aged about eighteen years and two months on the date of occurrence. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Superintendent of Police, Begusarai in which it has categorically been stated that the petitioner no.2, Rajni Kumari, is minor as her date of birth recorded in the school register is 12.6.1999 and, thus, the marriage, if any, between the petitioners is void in the eye of law. 6. Learned counsel of the State submitted that a forged school leaving certificate has been filed on oath showing the date of birth of petitioner no.2 to be 5.4.1994, whereas on verification from the school register the same has been found to be recorded as 12.6.1999. A photo copy of the school leaving certificate of petitioner no.2 duly issued under the signature of the Headmaster of the school has been brought on record as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Superintendent of Police, Begusarai. 7. Since there were conflicting entries of date of Patna High Court CR. WJC No.939 of 2012 (8) dt.23-04-2013 4 birth of the petitioner no.2 in the application filed by the petitioners and the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Superintendent of Police, Begusarai, this court, by order dated 4.1.2013, directed the petitioners to implead the District Programme Officer, Begusarai and the Headmaster of Middle School, Makhdumpur, as respondent nos. 5 and 6 in the case and the learned counsel appearing for the State was directed to take instructions from the newly added respondents regarding the genuineness of date of birth as recorded in the school register and the school leaving certificate of petitioner no.2. 8. In compliance with the aforesaid order dated 4.1.2013, learned counsel for the State filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the Headmaster, Middle School, Makdumpur in which it has been contended that the record of the school was verified by the District Programme Officer, Begusarai in presence of the Headmaster of the school and from perusal of the school record it has found that the petitioner no.2 was admitted in the school on 17.2.2003 and her date of birth recorded in the school admission register is 12.6.1999. It has further been contended that counter folio of school leaving certificate of petitioner no.2 was also examined and from perusal of the same it was found that her date of birth has been recorded in the school leaving certificate as Patna High Court CR. WJC No.939 of 2012 (8) dt.23-04-2013 5 12.6.1999. 9. The respondent second party, namely, Jai Jai Ram Kaib, the informant of Mansoor Chak P.S. Case No.63 of 2012, has also appeared through lawyer. A counter affidavit has also been filed on his behalf. 10. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.4 submitted that the petitioner no.1 has kidnapped the petitioner no.2 and she is being detained by him illegally. In order to get a favorable order, the petitioner no.1 has not hesitated in producing a forged school leaving certificate on oath before this court. Apparently, the petitioner no.1 has tried to obtain a favourable order from this court by intentionally fabricating false evidence and filed the same in a judicial proceeding. Of course, the affidavit has been sworn by the petitioner no.2 but she is under illegal confinement of petitioner 1. She is hardly aged about fourteen years and, as such, she had not attained the age of consent for the purposes of marriage. I find force in the submissions made on behalf of the respondent second party. The petitioner no.1 might have coerced the petitioner no.2 who is under his illegal confinement to swear false affidavit. The prayer made in the writ application is to quash the FIR in which the petitioner no.1 has been made an accused. As a matter of fact, the petitioner no.2 is a Patna High Court CR. WJC No.939 of 2012 (8) dt.23-04-2013 6 victim in the case instituted by the respondent second party. 11. In my view, apparently, the petitioner no.1 has committed the offences under sections 191 and 192 of the Code which are punishable under section 193 of the Code. 12. Section 191 of the Code, so far as relevant for the present case, is as follows: “191. Giving false evidence.- Whoever, being legally bound by an oath or by an express provision of law to state the truth, or being bound by law to make a declaration upon any subject, makes any statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, is said to give false evidence.” 13. From a bare reading of section 191 of the code it would appear that making a false affidavit would also be an offence under this section. 14. Similarly, section 192 of the Code, so far as relevant for the present case, is as under: “192. Fabricating false evidence.- Whoever causes any circumstance to exist or makes any false entry in any book or record, or electronic record or makes any document or electronic record containing a false statement, intending that such Patna High Court CR. WJC No.939 of 2012 (8) dt.23-04-2013 7 circumstance, false entry or false statement may appear in evidence in a judicial proceeding, or in a proceeding taken by law before a public servant as such, or before an arbitrator, and that such circumstance, false entry or false statement, so appearing in evidence, may cause any person who in such proceeding is to form an opinion upon the evidence, to entertain an erroneous opinion touching any point material to the result of such proceeding, is said “to fabricate false evidence”. 15. The essential ingredients of the offence under section 192 of the Code are as follows: (i)Accused caused certain circumstances to exist or made or caused to be made a false entry in any book or record or electronic record or made or fabricate a document or electronic false statement; containing record (ii)He intended to use it in some judicial proceeding or before a public servant or in a proceeding before an arbitrator; (iii)The authority conducting the proceeding on the basis of such fabricated document may form an opinion on the said document; (iv)Accused intended that an erroneous opinion be entertained; (v)Such opinion should touch upon the material result or the proceeding. Patna High Court CR. WJC No.939 of 2012 (8) dt.23-04-2013 8 16. From the discussions made, hereinabove, it is apparent that the school leaving certificate containing offending entry was tendered in evidence before this court for obtaining a favourable order for the petitioner no.1. 17. Section 193 of the Code prescribes punishment for intentionally giving false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding, or fabricating false evidence for the purposes of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding. 18. Thus, I have no reason to doubt that the petitioners are prima facie guilty for having committed the offences under sections 191 and 192 of the Code punishable under section 193 of the Code. However, I refrain myself from ordering for prosecution of the petitioners in the present case for the simple reason that one does not know under what circumstance the petitioner no.2 swore the affidavit in the present application. In any case, the present application, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed. 19. Before parting with the case, I must say that the petitioner no.1 has committed a serious offence by kidnapping and illegally confining a fourteen years old girl. Not only this, in order to get a favourable order from this court he has not even hesitated in playing fraud upon the court by annexing a tainted and Patna High Court CR. WJC No.939 of 2012 (8) dt.23-04-2013 9 fabricated document in the present application. 20. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case, I direct the Superintendent of Police, Begusarai to personally supervise the aforesaid case and take all possible steps to recover and restore the victim girl to her parents. I further direct the Superintendent of Police, Begusarai and the Officer-in-charge of Mansoor Chak Police Station to take all coercive steps to ensure the appearance of petitioner no.1 in the aforesaid case, conclude the investigation and submit their report to the Magistrate concerned. After the investigating agency submit their report, the Magistrate concerned would proceed to deal with the matter further in accordance with law. It is made clear that once the police report is submitted, the Magistrate concerned shall not delay the further proceedings in any manner. In case, the investigating officer submits charge-sheet in the case for the offences alleged, the Magistrate concerned shall forthwith commit the case to the court of sessions after complying with the mandates of section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In case, the case is committed to the court of sessions, the concerned sessions court would frame the charges without any delay and hold the trial on day-to-day basis without giving any unnecessary adjournment on any ground. Patna High Court CR. WJC No.939 of 2012 (8) dt.23-04-2013 10 21. Let a copy of this order be communicated by the Registry to the learned Sessions Judge, Begusarai forthwith for the needful. Learned counsel for the State is also directed to communicate the order to the Superintendent of Police concerned for taking necessary action/actions as directed by this court. 22. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the application is dismissed. Md.S./- (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J)