Jharkhand High Court
Chunmun Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand & Another ..... ... on 28 November, 2023
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
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
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. 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
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--
(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
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.
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. This petition stands allowed and disposed of. Interim order is vacated.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Satyarthi/
