Rajesh Kumar v. Party

Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Anil Kumar Shukla, G.A., Satwik Tripathi Court No. - 93 HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A for the State, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 and perused the material on record.

2. The present revision has been filed against the order dated 18.12.2023 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Kanpur Dehat in Case No. 355 of 2008, under Section 181 IPC, Police Station Mangalpur, Kanpur Dehat, by which the application moved by the revisionist has been dismissed on the ground that any complaint with respect of Section 195(i), (b) (ii) Cr.P.C, Section 181 IPC cannot be moved by the private persons, but by the government servant.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the said application moved by the revisionist was fully maintainable in terms of Section 195 (1)(b) (ii) Cr.P.C, which reads as under:- "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— (a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 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 Indian 2 CRLR No. 1618 of 2024 Penal Code (45 of 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 authorized 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 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."

4. It is further alleged that two persons namely Devendra Singh and Shripal have filed false affidavits before the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Kanpur Dehat, and inquiry was conducted with respect to the falsity of those two affidavits filed by one Devendra Singh and Shripal.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 has submitted that the order passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial 3 CRLR No. 1618 of 2024 Magistrate, Court No. 1, Kanpur Dehat, is in accordance with law and has been passed by due consideration of the matter. Learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 has further submitted that, law on the subject is that, no cognizance can be taken for an offence attracted under Section 181 IPC, therefore, order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Kanpur Dehat, does not call for any interference by this Court.

6. Having regard to the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it has been provided in Section 181 IPC that if, some persons files a false document or adduce false evidence before the competent authority, government servant or any person authorized by law, would be punishable for the said offence, if the said document or evidence is found to be false. However, in the present case no cognizance has been taken upon the affidavit submitted by one Devendra Singh and Shripal and without taking any cognizance on those two affidavits, an inquiry was conducted, wherein it was found that two affidavits are not correct, but are false. It is not the case of the revisionist that in respect of these two affidavits, cognizance has been taken and some order has been passed, but simply filed on record.

7. Under the circumstances, it is directed that learned trial court will not take any cognizance on these two affidavits filed by one Devendra Singh and Shripal, since the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Kanpur Dehat has not passed any order for taking cognizance on these two affidavits. It is directed that the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Kanpur Dehat may proceed in the matter without taking into consideration these two affidavits, filed by one Devendra Singh and Shripal.

8. With the aforesaid direction the revision is disposed of. September 22, 2025 Vikram (Harvir Singh,J.) VIKRAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Anil Kumar Shukla, G.A., Satwik Tripathi Court No. - 93 HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A for the State, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 and perused the material on record.

2. The present revision has been filed against the order dated 18.12.2023 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Kanpur Dehat in Case No. 355 of 2008, under Section 181 IPC, Police Station Mangalpur, Kanpur Dehat, by which the application moved by the revisionist has been dismissed on the ground that any complaint with respect of Section 195(i), (b) (ii) Cr.P.C, Section 181 IPC cannot be moved by the private persons, but by the government servant.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the said application moved by the revisionist was fully maintainable in terms of Section 195 (1)(b) (ii) Cr.P.C, which reads as under:- "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— (a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 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 Indian 2 CRLR No. 1618 of 2024 Penal Code (45 of 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 authorized 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 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."

4. It is further alleged that two persons namely Devendra Singh and Shripal have filed false affidavits before the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Kanpur Dehat, and inquiry was conducted with respect to the falsity of those two affidavits filed by one Devendra Singh and Shripal.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 has submitted that the order passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial 3 CRLR No. 1618 of 2024 Magistrate, Court No. 1, Kanpur Dehat, is in accordance with law and has been passed by due consideration of the matter. Learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 has further submitted that, law on the subject is that, no cognizance can be taken for an offence attracted under Section 181 IPC, therefore, order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Kanpur Dehat, does not call for any interference by this Court.

6. Having regard to the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it has been provided in Section 181 IPC that if, some persons files a false document or adduce false evidence before the competent authority, government servant or any person authorized by law, would be punishable for the said offence, if the said document or evidence is found to be false. However, in the present case no cognizance has been taken upon the affidavit submitted by one Devendra Singh and Shripal and without taking any cognizance on those two affidavits, an inquiry was conducted, wherein it was found that two affidavits are not correct, but are false. It is not the case of the revisionist that in respect of these two affidavits, cognizance has been taken and some order has been passed, but simply filed on record.

7. Under the circumstances, it is directed that learned trial court will not take any cognizance on these two affidavits filed by one Devendra Singh and Shripal, since the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Kanpur Dehat has not passed any order for taking cognizance on these two affidavits. It is directed that the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Kanpur Dehat may proceed in the matter without taking into consideration these two affidavits, filed by one Devendra Singh and Shripal.

8. With the aforesaid direction the revision is disposed of. September 22, 2025 Vikram (Harvir Singh,J.) VIKRAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad