The High Court of Jharkhand quashed proceedings filed against the petitioner under Sections 182 and 211 of the IPC and held that in order to make out a prima facie offence under the section, it was necessary that false information should have been given to the public servant to be used to cause injury to another person in the present case, the offence under Section 182 of 211 of the IPC will not be made out.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner, informant in a case filed under Section 392 of the IPC which was lodged against unknown persons, was going by his bicycle with cash of Rs.40,000/- to purchase ox and was intercepted by two motorcycle borne miscreants who robbed him of the said amount while he was on the way. The police, on the investigation, filed the final form as the case was not true and recommended prosecution under Sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner then filed a protest-complaint case which was rejected and cognizance was taken. The present petition has been filed against this impugned order.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the essential ingredient of the offence under Section 182 or 211 of the IPC is that criminal law should have been put into motion by the informant/complainant with the intent to injure some person. The counsel further relied on the judgment in Santosh Bakshi versus State of Punjab & Others wherein it has been held that false information with the intention to injure another person was an essential ingredient of the offence and stated that in the present case, there is no material to show that Petitioner had any intention to injure anyone as the F.I.R. had been lodged against unknown.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent defended the impugned order which rejected the protest-complaint case filed by the petitioner and was too cognizance.
Observations of the court:
The court referred to Sections 182 and 211 of the IPC and stated that in order to make out a prima facie offence under the section, it was necessary that false information should have been given to the public servant to be used to cause injury to another person and in the present case, the offence under Section 182 of 211 of the IPC will not be made out.
The court stated that as the facts of the case disclosed, the FIR was lodged against an unknown and therefore, it cannot be said that there was any intention to cause injury to any person further the court stated that the protest-cum-complaint petition has been dismissed in a summary manner even without recording statement of the complainant or the enquiry witnesses and concluded that the impugned order is not sustainable in law.
The decision of the Court:
The court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order and quashed the entire criminal proceedings against the petitioner.
Case Title: Charku Sahu @ Charhu Sahu vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Case No.: Cr.M.P. No. 1252 of 2018
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Amresh Kumar and Mr. T.N. Mishra
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Anjani Kumar Toppo
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
