The Madras High Court recently comprising of a Single Bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh has held that an officer who conducted investigation or filed a final report pursuant to filing of a criminal complaint cannot be prosecuted under Section 211 of IPC for making false accusations, in case of acquittal of the accused. (A. Radhika v. Wilson Sundararaj)
The Bench observed that if investigating officers are exposed to such proceedings in all cases where the accused persons are acquitted, it will directly interfere with their independence in conducting an investigation.
The Bench further made it clear that the language used under Section 211 regarding false charge can only relate to the defacto complainant who set the criminal law in motion, and not the investigating officer.
Facts of the case
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed challenging the summons issued by the Court below directing the Petitioner to attend an enquiry initiated by the court below based on the complaint given by the Respondent under Section 340 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The Respondent who faced trial along with 3 other accused persons for an offence under Sections 120B, 307, 450, 451, 384, 506-Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 109, I.P.C. The FIR in this case was registered by the Police and later on the investigation was transferred to the file of the CBCID. The Petitioner who was then the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBCID was assigned the task of investigating the case. It was based on the final report filed by the Petitioner, the accused persons faced the trial before the concerned court.
The trial court on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence and after considering the facts and circumstances of the case was pleased to acquit all the accused persons from all the charges through a judgement dt. 23.02.2006.
This judgement was taken on appeal by the CBCID before this Court in Crl. Appeal No. 52 of 2010. This Court by a judgement dt. 22.06.2017, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment passed by the trial court.
The Petitioner thereafter, filed a complaint before the court below in the year 2019 under Section 340, Cr.P.C. against the defacto complainant and the Petitioner herein, on the ground that they have committed an offence under Section 211, I.P.C., and the entire case was a malicious prosecution against the Respondent.
The court below on receipt of the complaint proceeded to issue summons to the Petitioner to conduct an enquiry before acting upon the complaint. Aggrieved by the summons issued by the court below, the present petition has been filed before this Court.
Contention of the parties
The counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner had only investigated the FIR after it was transferred to CBCID and the mere fact that the Respondent was acquitted by the court will not attract an offence under Section 211, I.P.C. The learned counsel further submitted that if the offence under Section 211, I.P.C. cannot be made applicable against the Petitioner, there was no occasion for the court below to even conduct a preliminary enquiry by issuing summons to the Petitioner. It was submitted that the sum and substance of the complaint given by the Respondent is that there was a malicious prosecution against the Respondent and if the claim made by the Respondent is taken to be true, the Respondent can only file a suit claiming for damages for malicious prosecution before the competent court, and it cannot be a ground to file a complaint under Section 340, Cr.P.C.
The counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent submitted that the findings given by the trial court and this Hon’ble Court in the criminal appeal clearly show that the entire case is false and the Respondent has been intentionally roped in as an accused for having filed a Habeas Corpus Petition questioning an illegal arrest made by the police.
The counsel further submitted that the court below has only called the Petitioner for a preliminary enquiry and whatever grounds are raised by the Petitioner in the present petition, can be raised before the court below and the court below will take a decision in accordance with law. Therefore, the Petitioner cannot be allowed to rush to this Court even without giving an explanation to the court below by attending the enquiry. The counsel in order to substantiate his submissions relied upon the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Perumal v. Janaki reported in (2014) 5 SCC 377.
Courts Observation & Judgment
Firstly, the Court dealt with maintainability of the instant petition in view of the Respondent's submission.
The Court was of the opinion that if the allegations made in the Respondent's complaint, even if taken as it is, do not make out an offence under Section 211, IPC, then the Petitioner shall not be required to go through the ordeal of even a preliminary enquiry before the court below.
Thus, it was held that it is essential to hear this petition and test the complaint to satisfy as to whether an offence under Section 211 IPC has been made out against the Petitioner.
The Court concurred with the Petitioner that the complaint filed by the Respondent at the best makes out a case for malicious prosecution. It held,
"In a case of malicious prosecution, which gives rise to a tortious liability, only a suit for damages can be filed by establishing the ingredients to maintain such a suit. The grounds for maintaining a suit for malicious prosecution cannot form the basis for filing a petition under Section 340, Cr.P.C. since it has to independently satisfy the requirements of Section 195(1)(b), Cr.P.C."
The bench placed Reliance on Santokh Singh &Ors. v. Izhar Hussan & Anr., (1973) 2 SCC 406, whereby the Supreme Court had held that the words "false charges" must be read along with the expression "institution of criminal proceedings", which relates back to the initiation of criminal proceedings and it can never be related to an alleged false charge framed after the filing of the final report.
The bench further held that an investigation officer cannot be charged for false accusation under Section 211 IPC on acquittal of the accused.
It observed, "If investigating officers are going to be exposed to such proceedings in all cases where the accused persons are acquitted from all charges, it will directly interfere with the independence of the authority in conducting an investigation."
The Bench in context of the present case noted, that the on a complaint given by one Mr. Rajamani, the FIR was registered and the arrest was made. The Petitioner came into the scene only at a later point of time when the case was transferred to the file of the CBCID. Thus, admittedly, it was not the Petitioner who had set the criminal law in motion.
Share this Document :Picture Source :
