1. Chunmun Singh 2. Mangal Purty v. The State of Jharkhand & Another
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2104 of 2015 1. Chunmun Singh 2. Mangal Purty .... …Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand & Another ..... …Opposite Parties CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioners :- Mr. Nishant Roy, Advocate ------ For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Ritesh Kumar Mahato, A.C. to Mr. Mahesh Tewari. 04/ Dated:-28.11.2023 Heard Mr. Nishant Roy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Ritesh Kumar Mahato, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 12.02.2015 in connection with C.P. Case No. 2784 of 2013, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad. 3. The complaint case has been lodged alleging therein that the complainant has protested against the illegal. acts of accused Chunmun Singh who is the Officer-in Charge of Putki P.S. In this respect, on 22.5.13, he has also given an application to the Dy. Inspector General of Police. It is stated that when the accused came to know about the application given by the complainant, he told to several persons that he will implicate the complainant in a false case. The complainant became aware of the intention of the accused, preferred an application to Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad regarding the threatening of the accused. It has been further alleged that on 06.09.13 at night, articles worth Rs 2,00,000 have been stolen away from the shop namely Rahul Jewellers. It is further stated that Chamber of Commerce has represented before the Inspector General with respect to the incident of theft. In protest to the said incident of 2 theft, people represented by the Chamber of Commerce have blocked the main road of Dhanbad-Bokaro. It is further stated that in the said incident of blockage of road, complainant was not present rather he was in the house of witness Deepak Mukherjee. It is alleged that for that occurrence, accused no.1 in connivance with accused no.2 who are the police officials have made conspiracy and lodged a case bearing Putki P.S Case No. 128/2013 against the complainant and others. It is alleged in the aforesaid case that the complainant had instigated the crowd in the said incident of blockage of road. It is further alleged that accused persons by misusing their post have lodged a false case against the complainant in spite of the fact that he was not involved in the said incident. Several photographs have been taken by the electronic media and press but nowhere complainant was shown. It is stated that the complainant has represented before the administration with regard to the false implication of the complainant in the said case but no action has been taken by them. On the basis of written complaint of the complainant, the present case has been registered. 4.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Nishant Roy, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are police officials posted at Dhanbad in the State of Jharkhand. He further submits that the petitioners have filed the case being Putki P.S. Case No. 128 of 2013 against the complainant and others for the allegation that the complainant had instigated the crowd in the said incident of blockage of road. He further submits that in the present complaint allegations are made that the petitioners have lodged false case. He further submits that the learned court has taken cognizance under section 211 I.P.C. He draws the attention of the Court to Section 195 of Cr.P.C. and submits that only complaint can be maintained on an application filed by the public servant. He submits that the case of the petitioners are covered in the light of Judgment in the case of “Narendra Kumar Srivastava Vs. State of Bihar and Others” (2019) 3 SCC 318 wherein para 11,12, and 24 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “ 11. Before proceeding further, it is important to peruse the 3 relevant sections of IPC and CrPC. Section 193 IPC reads as follows: “193. Punishment for false evidence.—Whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding, or fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine, and whoever intentionally gives or fabricates false evidence in any other case, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation 1.—A trial before a court-martial is a judicial proceeding. Explanation 2.—An investigation directed by law preliminary to a proceeding before a court of justice, is a stage of judicial proceeding, though that investigation may not take place before a court of justice. Illustration A, in an enquiry before a Magistrate for the purpose of ascertaining whether Z ought to be committed for trial, makes on oath a statement which he knows to be false. As this enquiry is a stage of a judicial proceeding, A has given false evidence. Explanation 3.—An investigation directed by a court of justice according to law, and conducted under the authority of a court of justice, is a stage of a judicial proceeding, though that investigation may not take place before a court of justice. Illustration A, in an enquiry before an officer deputed by a court of justice to ascertain on the spot the boundaries of land, makes on oath a statement which he knows to be false. As this enquiry is a stage of a judicial proceeding, A has given false evidence.” 12. Section 195 CrPC expressly states as follows: “195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence.—(1) No court shall take cognizance— 4 (a)(i) of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Penal Code, 1860, or (ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence, or (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate; (b)(i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Penal Code, 1860, namely, Sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any court, or (ii) of any offence described in Section 463, or punishable under Section 471, Section 475 or Section 476, of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court, or (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (ii), except on the complaint in writing of that court or by such officer of the court as that court may authorise in writing in this behalf, or of some other court to which that court is subordinate. (2) Where a complaint has been made by a public servant under clause (a) of sub-section (1) any authority to which he is administratively subordinate may order the withdrawal of the complaint and send a copy of such order to the court; and upon its receipt by the court, no further proceedings shall be taken on the complaint: Provided that no such withdrawal shall be ordered if the trial in the court of first instance has been concluded. (3) In clause (b) of sub-section (1), the term “court” means a civil, revenue or criminal court, and includes a tribunal constituted by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act if declared by that Act to be a court for the purposes of this section. (4) For the purposes of clause (b) of sub-section (1), a court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the court to which appeals ordinarily lie 5 from the appealable decrees or sentences of such former court, or in the case of a civil court from whose decrees no appeal ordinarily lies, to the principal court having ordinary original civil jurisdiction within whose local jurisdiction such civil court is situate: Provided that— (a) where appeals lie to more than one court, the appellate court of inferior jurisdiction shall be the court to which such court shall be deemed to be subordinate; (b) where appeals lie to a civil and also to a Revenue Court, such court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the civil or Revenue Court according to the nature of the case or proceeding in connection with which the offence is alleged to have been committed.” (emphasis supplied) 24. The case in hand squarely falls within the category of cases falling under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC as the offence is punishable under Section 193 IPC. Therefore, the Magistrate has erred in taking cognizance of the offence on the basis of a private complaint. The High Court, in our view, has rightly set aside the order of the Magistrate. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it proper to set aside the costs imposed by the High Court.” 5. Mr. Ritesh Kumar Mahato, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 submits that the petitioners have not discharged the duty properly and falsely implicated the O.P. No.2 and in view of that complaint case has been filed and the learned court has taken cognizance. 6. Learned counsel for the State submits that on the complaint the learned court has taken cognizance. 7. In view of above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the court has gone through the contents of the complaint petition and finds that allegations are made that the petitioners who are police officials have falsely implicated the O.P. No.2 in that case. It is an admitted position that the case being Putki P.s. Case No. 128 of 2013 was registered against the O.P. No.2 and others thereafter the complaint case has been filed. 6 8. In view of above, it is imperative to take into consideration the embargo for taking cognizance of an offence punishable under section 188 of IPC, contained in section 195 of Cr.P.C. 9. In view of the aforesaid legal provisions contemplated under section 195 (b) (i) of Cr.P.C., it can be said that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under sections 193 to 196, 199, 200, 205 to 211 of the IPC, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned, or some other public servant, to whom he is administratively subordinate. The word, "complaint" referred in the above mentioned provision of Section 195 of the Cr.P.C., denotes, "complaint in writing to a magistrate" and "not a police report". 10. However, in the case in hand the complaint case has been filed but not by a public servant. Further to invoke Section 211 I.P.C. false complaint case to be filed in the Court but under section 182 there is no such requirement. The false complaint to the police or a public servant is a sufficient to the offence under section 182 I.P.C. and 211 I.P.C. are distinct offences and the person under section 182 I.P.C. cannot be alternatively charged under section 211 I.P.C. There is no false compliant filed by the petitioners and in view of that section 211 I.P.C. is not attracted. Further 195 of Cr.P.C. procedure is required to be followed which is lacking in the case in hand. The case of the petitioners is fully covered in the light of judgment in the case of ”Narendra Kumar Srivastava” (supra). Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 12.02.2015 in connection with C.P. Case No. 2784 of 2013, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, is hereby quashed. 11.
Decision
This petition stands allowed and disposed of. Interim order is vacated. Satyarthi/ ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)