Jharkhand High Court
Md. Ikrail @ Md. Ikrail Ansari (Ali) vs The State Of Jharkhand on 6 May, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 257 of 2021
Md. Ikrail @ Md. Ikrail Ansari (Ali), aged about 42 years, son of Md.
Safed Ali, resident of Rajwara, P.O. & P.S.-Rajmahal, Dist.-Sahebganj,
Jharkhand
.... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
.... Opp. Party
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.....
For the Petitioner : Mr. Raja Ram Shekhar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. P.D. Agrawal, Spl. P.P.
.....
By the Court:-
1. Heard the parties.
2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to
quash the order dated 29.07.2017 passed by the learned S.D.J.M.,
Rajmahal in connection with Rajmahal P.S. Case No. 148 of 2016,
corresponding to G.R. No. 531 of 2016.
3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner lodged Rajmahal P.S.
Case No. 148 of 2016 against the named accused persons of that case
alleging commission of the offence punishable under Sections 341,
323, 379, 447 and 504 of Indian Penal Code.
4. After investigation of the case, police found the allegation against
the accused persons to be not true and found that the petitioner has
committed the offence punishable under Section 182 and 211 of
Indian Penal Code.
5. The learned S.D.J.M., Rajmahal issued notice to the petitioner. The
notice was received by the petitioner but he did not turn up before
the learned S.D.J.M., Rajmahal to challenge the final report or the
complaint for having committed the offences punishable under
Section 182 and 211 I.P.C.
6. Consequent upon that learned S.D.J.M., Rajmahal accepted the
final form submitted by police and after going through the record as
the learned S.D.J.M., Rajmahal found that the prima facie the offences
punishable under Section 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code is
made out hence, took cognizance of the offences punishable under
Section 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner.
7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the FIR
was handed over to the officer-in-charge of Rajmahal police station
and it is averred in paragraph no.6 of the criminal miscellaneous
petition that the case was transferred to the Nandkishor Singh,
Assistant Sub-Inspector, Rajmahal who submitted final form being
the I.O. of the case. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the I.O. of the case Nandkishor Singh is subordinate
to Officer-in-Charge of Rajmahal Police station hence, the court
ought not have taken cognizance for the offences punishable under
Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code on a complaint lodged by an
inferior officer being Nandkishor Singh, Assistant Sub-Inspector,
Rajmahal being the I.O. of the case when the FIR was addressed to
the Officer-in-Charge of police station-who was a superior officer to
that of Nandkishor Singh, Assistant Sub-Inspector. So far as the
offence punishable under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code is
concerned, it is submitted that the same is bad in law.
8. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
the case of P.D. Lakhani & Anr. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported
in (2008) 5 SCC 150, wherein in the facts of that case, the accused
persons of that case approached the Senior Superintendent of Police,
Jallandhar with a written complaint and Senior Superintendent of
Police directed the subordinate officer to enquire and report and the
subordinate officer reported to the Senior Superintendent of Police
that application submitted by the accused of that case making
allegation are found to be false after investigation and the S.H.O. of
the police station who was not involved in the investigation of the
case was directed to take action against the accused persons of that
case for having committed the offence punishable under Section 182
of the Indian Penal Code, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
relying upon its judgment in the case of Daulat Ram vs. State of
Punjab reported in AIR 1982 SC 1206 and State of U.P. vs. Mata
Bhikh & Ors. reported in (1994) 4 SCC 95 held that since the
complaint lodged by delegation of power without any sanction of
law, the same is in the teeth of section 195 of Code of Criminal
Procedure and set aside the judgment of the High Court with
observation that another complaint would be maintainable at the
instance of the appropriate authority. Hence, it is submitted that the
prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.
9. Learned Special Public Prosecutor on the other hand opposes the
prayer made by the petitioner and submits that the fact of P.D.
Lakhani & Anr. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (supra) and this case are
entirely different. Unlike the case of P.D. Lakhani & Anr. vs. State
of Punjab & Anr. (supra), the I.O. of the case was entrusted with the
investigation of the case is undisputedly a public servant and he
himself conducted the investigation including the recording of the
statement of informant of that case under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and in
such statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the informant gave the
information which he knew and believe to be false intending thereby
to cause and knowing it to be likely to cause that he will thereby
cause to the I.O. of the case, to do something which the I.O. ought
not to do, that is of falsely implicating the accused persons of the
case and submitted charge sheet against them. Hence, in the facts of
this case, the I.O. of the case is a "public servant concern" as
mentioned in Section 195 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. It is
further submitted by learned Spl. P.P. that the petitioner has
wrongly mentioned in paragraph no.6 of this criminal miscellaneous
petition that the case was transferred to Nandkishor Singh, Assistant
Sub-Inspector but the fact remains that the case was not transferred
to anybody and only the investigation of the case was entrusted to
Nandkishor Singh. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal
miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed.
10. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going
through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here
that Section 195 (1) Cr.P.C. envisages that no court shall take
cognizance inter alia of the offence punishable under Section 172 to
188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code except the complaint in
writing of the public servant concern. The question is as to who is
the public servant concern for an offence punishable under Section
182 of Indian Penal Code. Section 182 of Indian Penal Code reads as
under :-
"182. False information, with intent to cause public
servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another
person.--Whoever gives to any public servant any
information which he knows or believes to be false, intending
thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will
thereby cause, such public servant--
(a) to do or omit anything which such public servant ought
not to do or omit if the true state of facts respecting which
such information is given were known by him, or
(b) to use the lawful power of such public servant to the
injury or annoyance of any person,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for
a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which
may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both."
11. It is crystal clear from the plain of section 182 of the Indian Penal
Code; that a public servant to whom any information is given by
someone who knows and believes the information given, to be false,
is the public servant concerned.
12. Now in this case, the undisputed fact remains that the I.O. of the
case is the public servant to whom false information has been given
by the petitioner; knowing that the information given by him to be
false. There is no dispute that the other ingredients so as to constitute
the offence punishable under Section 182 of Indian Penal Code is
present, hence this Court is not delving into the other ingredients of
Section 182 of Indian Penal Code but the issue is confined only as to
who is the public servant concerned, hence, this Court has no
hesitation in holding that the I.O. of the case is the public servant
concerned; hence, the petitioner in his statement recorded under
section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has provided given
false information to the I.O. of the case.
13. The fact of the case is entirely different from the fact of P.D.
Lakhani & Anr. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (supra) because in that
case the investigation was done by one Gian Singh, In-charge,
Special Cell of CIA and a report was also made to Superintendent of
Police (Detective). The Station Housing Officer of Adampur who
was no way concerned with the receipt of the false information or
the investigation of the case; filed the complaint for taking
cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 182 of Indian
Penal Code but unlike that case, in this case, the I.O. of the case
without doubt is the person to whom false information has alleged
to have been given by the petitioner.
14. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that
the ratio of P.D. Lakhani & Anr. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (supra)
is not applicable to the facts of this case and the contention of the
petitioner that the cognizance of the offence punishable under
Section 211 of Indian Penal Code is bad in law is a bald one without
any specific reason , having been assigned therefor hence, this Court
is not inclined to interfere with the cognizance for the offence
punishable under Section 211 of Indian Penal Code as well.
15. In view of the discussions made above, this criminal miscellaneous
petition being without any merit is dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 6th May, 2024
AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-
