Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 211 (JHR)

Prashant Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2013-02-08

H.C.MISHRA

body2013
JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 22.8.2012 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar, in T.R. No. 1240 of 2012, whereby upon the case being remanded by the Revisional Court below, the Trial Court below has found the prime facie case against the complainant opposite party No. 2 only under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code and has held that no offence can be said to be made out for the offence under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code, in view of the bar under Section 195(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. 3. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the complainant opposite party No. 2 had filed a complaint petition against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 148, 149, 323 and 436 of the Indian Penal Code. The said complaint petition was sent by the Court concerned for institution of the police case, on the basis of which, Jasidih P.S. Case No. 209 of 2005 was instituted and investigation was taken up. It appears that after investigation, the police submitted final form in favour of the petitioner finding the case to be false. The record shows that upon submission of the final form, the complainant was noticed in the case and thereafter, final form was accepted by the Court below by order dated 22.4.2006 passed in G.R. Case No. 864 of 2005 corresponding to Jasidih P.S. Case No. 209 of 2005. It appears that prior to that i.e. on 31.1.2006 itself, the Investigating Officer of the case had filed an application for taking action against the complainant for the offences under Sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code, on the basis of which, cognizance was taken against the complainant. The complainant challenged the said order before the Revisional Court and the Revision Court found that cognizance under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code was bad in view of the clear bar under Section 195 (1)(b) of the Cr.P.C., and remanded the case back to the Court below for passing order afresh. The complainant challenged the said order before the Revisional Court and the Revision Court found that cognizance under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code was bad in view of the clear bar under Section 195 (1)(b) of the Cr.P.C., and remanded the case back to the Court below for passing order afresh. Thereafter, the Court below has passed the impugned order dated 22.8.2012, whereby the Court below has found prime facie case against the complainant opposite party No. 2 for the offence under Section 182 of the IPC only, and has held that no action can be taken against him for the offence under Section 211 of the IPC in view of the clear bar under Section 195(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below is absolutely illegal, inasmuch, as the complaint petition was filed against the petitioner for the offence under Section 436 of the IPC also, which is punishable by imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for ten years, and fine. Learned counsel has submitted that the said offence was committed with respect to the petitioner and accordingly, there is no bar under Section 195(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C., as actually no offence was committed in relation to the Court concerned and as such, the bar for taking cognizance under Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Cr.P.C., shall not operate in the facts of this case. 5. Alternatively, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even if it is accepted that there is a bar under Section 195 (1)(b)(i), then once the recommendation was made by the Police Officer concerned for taking action against the complainant for the offence under Section 182 and 211 IPC, the Court below was bound to file a written complaint against the complainant for the offence under Section 211 IPC as well. Learned counsel has accordingly, submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 6. Learned A.P.P. for the State, on the other hand, has submitted that there is a clear bar under Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance for the offences described therein, including Section 211 of the IPC, and accordingly, there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the Court below. 7. Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Cr.P.C. Reads as under:- “195. 7. Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Cr.P.C. Reads as under:- “195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relation to documents given in evidence.-(1) No Court shall take congruence- (a) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (b) (i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 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 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx except on the complaint in writing of that Court, or by such officer of the Court as the Court may authorize in writing in this behalf, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate”. 8. Thus, from the plain reading of this Section, it appears that if an offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, the cognizance is barred, except on the complaint in writing of that Court, or by such officer of the Court as the Court may authorize, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate. Thus, it is apparent that if an offence under Section 211 of the IPC is alleged to have been committed in relation to any proceeding in any Court, the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Cr.P.C., shall operate. 9. In the present case, the complaint petition was filed in the Court. The said complaint petition was sent for institution/investigation to the police under the provisions of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Upon investigation, the police submitted final form in favour of the accused. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered view that the offence under Section 211 IPC, if any, was clearly committed by the complainant in relation to a proceeding in the Court, as the complaint was filed in the Court, and accordingly, the bar under Section 195 (1) (b)(i) of the Cr.P.C. shall clearly operate in the case. 10. I do not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in that case it was mandatory for the Court either to file the written complaint or to direct any officer or Court subordinate to it to file written compliant for the offence under Section 211 IPC against the complainant. 10. I do not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in that case it was mandatory for the Court either to file the written complaint or to direct any officer or Court subordinate to it to file written compliant for the offence under Section 211 IPC against the complainant. It is always within his judicial discretion for the Court concerned to decide in the facts of the case whether it shall proceed with an action under Section 211 IPC or not. 11. I do not find any illegality and/or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the Court below, worth interference in the revisional jurisdiction. There is no merit in this revision application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.