Aman Chauhan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 4633 MP

                                                                                       1
                                      IN        THE           HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                                   AT JABALPUR
                                                                        BEFORE
                                                            HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANJULI PALO
                                                                    ON THE 25 th OF MARCH, 2023
                                                               CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2819 of 2014

                                     BETWEEN:-
                                     AMAN CHAUHAN S/O AMRITLAL CHAUHAN, AGED
                                     ABOUT 38 YEARS, HANUMAN WARD NO. 4, KHEDIPURA,
                                     DISTRICT HARDA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                                                     .....APPELLANT
                                     (BY SHRI ASHISH SHROTI - ADVOCATE)

                                     AND
                                     THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH P.S. HARDA HARDA
                                     (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                                                .....RESPONDENT
                                     (BY SHRI S.M. PATEL - PANEL LAWYER)
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Reserved on :27.02.2023
                                                Pronounced on: 25.03.2023
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             This appeal having been heard and reserved for orders, coming on for
                                     pronouncement this day, the court pronounced the following:
                                                                                         ORDER

This appeal under section 341 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has b e e n preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 09.09.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge & Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Harda in Special Sessions Case No.05/2013 whereby the Court below found that the appellant gave false evidence before the trial Court and thereby Signature Not Verified SAN committed offence under sections 193, 203 of the Indian Penal Code. Digitally signed by RAJESH MAMTANI Date: 2023.03.25 18:27:35 IST 2. The facts, in brief, are that on 22.6.2012 the appellant was working as

Patwari and also holding charge of Revenue Inspector, Tahsil Handia, District Harda. In compliance of order of Tahsildar the appellant alongwith another Patwari, Kotwar, Sarpanch & Teachers visited Abgaon Kalan in day hours for demarcation of the land bearing Khasra No.12/2 (Kha) & 12/1 which was proposed for construction of a Government High School. At the time of demarcation one Anil Jaat reached at the spot and asked as to how appellant dared to enter his land. Said Anil Jaat also caused hindrance in demarcation proceedings, threatened appellant and used filthy languages against him. The appellant reported the matter to his superior officials. On next day i.e. 23.6.2012 matter was reported to the Police Station, Harda where on the basis of

complaint made by appellant Crime No.368/12 was registered against said Anil Jaat for offences under sections 294, 506 & 353 of IPC and u/s 3(1)(10) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Accordingly, said Anil Jaat was tried in S.T.No.05/2013 and by impugned judgment he was acquitted from the charges levelled against him. The court below while acquitting him, in paragraph 22 of the judgment observed appellant has either lodged false FIR or has given false statement, therefore, it is clear that appellant committed offences under section 193 and 203 of the Indian Penal Code.

3 . Learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the impugned findings against him of judgment dated 09.9.2014 on the grounds that court below failed to follow procedure prescribed under section 195 read with section 340 of Cr.P.C. as there is no written complaint. Before recording findings against appellant no opportunity of hearing was afforded to him. The appellant has not made any false statement in Court, therefore, ingredients of section 193 Signature Not Verified SAN

of IPC are not attracted. Even the appellant has not given any false information Digitally signed by RAJESH MAMTANI Date: 2023.03.25 18:27:35 IST

so as to attract offence under section 203 of IPC. There is no material on

record to implicate the appellant u/s 193 & 203 of IPC. There was compromise between parties, but before that challan has already been filed in the Court. Hence, prayer has been made to quash the findings recorded by trial Court in paragraphs 22 & 23 of judgment dated 09.9.2014.

4. Learned Panel Lawyer has supported the judgment passed by the trial Court, opposed the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant and claimed dismissal of this appeal.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record. It is clear that the appellant was the complainant. He himself lodged a report against Anil Jaat (accused in S.T.No.05/2013). Thereafter, the Police Station, Harda registered the offences punishable under Section 294, 506 & 353 of IPC and Section 3(1) (10) of SC/ST Act. But during the trial the appellant turned hostile and did not support the prosecution story. Hence, offences under Sections 193 and 203 of IPC are made out against him. Admittedly, this finding is there in the impugned judgment. But, no written complaint has been filed by the concerned Court in this regard.

6. As per Chandrapal Singh and others Vs. Maharaj Singh and another, (1972) 1 SCC 466 if according to the complainant false evidence was given in a judicial proceedings before the trial Court and the person giving such false evidence has committed an offence under section 193 of IPC, Section

195(1)(b)(i) of Cr.P.C. would be attracted and consequently no Court can take cognizance of such offence except on a complaint in writing by that office or Court. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that complaint is liable to be quashed

Signature Not Verified SAN in the absence of a written complaint.

Digitally signed by RAJESH MAMTANI

7. In the case of Santokh Singh Vs. Izhar Hussain and another, Date: 2023.03.25 18:27:35 IST

(1973) 2 SCC 410 the Allahabad High Court referred to section 476 of Cr.P.C. which reads as under:-

"476. Procedure in cases mentioned in Section 195.-(1) When any Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court is, whether on application Procedure in cases made to it in this behalf or other mentioned in wise, of opinion that it is expedient in section 195. the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into, any offence referred to in section 195, subsection (1), clause (b) or clause (c), which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary, record a finding to that effect and make a complaint thereof in writing signed by the presiding officer of the Court, and shall forward the same to a Magistrate, of the first class having juris- diction, and may take sufficient security for the appearance of the accused before such Magistrate or if the alleged offence is non- bailable may, if it thinks necessary so to do, send the accused in custody to such Magistrate, and may bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate Provided that, where the Court making the complaint is a High Court, the complaint may be signed by such officer of the Court as the Court may appoint"

8. In the case of B.K. Gupta Vs. Damodar H. Bajaj and others, (2001) 9 SCC 742 the Supreme Court while dealing section 340(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. took into account the conditions for making complaint under, against a person who made false affidavit and adduced false evidence in proceeding before the Court. In case of non-application of mind by the Court in respect of any of the conditions, order for filing complaint would be vitiated.

9. Considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case as also Signature Not Verified SAN

the impugned findings/observations made by the court below and taking into Digitally signed by RAJESH MAMTANI Date: 2023.03.25 18:27:35 IST

account that no complaint has been filed by the concerned Court and analyzing

the same in the light of law laid down in above case, the findings recorded against the appellant in paragraphs 22 & 23 of the judgment dated 09.9.2014 are hereby quashed. In the result, this appeal stands allowed and disposed of accordingly.

10. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for information and necessary action.

(SMT. ANJULI PALO) JUDGE RM

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by RAJESH MAMTANI Date: 2023.03.25 18:27:35 IST