Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 43 (MP)

Narmad Prasad Vishwakarma v. Ajay Tiwari

2015-01-12

N.K.GUPTA

body2015
ORDER 1. At the request of learned counsel for the parties, heard them finally. 2. The applicant has challenged the order dated 21.12.2013 passed by the JMFC, Jabalpur (Shri Yashpal Singh) in Criminal Complaint Case (the registration number is not given on the certified copy of the impugned order) whereby, a complaint was registered against the applicant of offence under section 211 of I.P.C. 3. Facts of the case in short, are that, the applicant had lodged an FIR on 13.10.2011 at Police Station, Lordganj against unknown persons. Thereafter, on 17.10.2011 the applicant appeared before the S.H.O – P.S. Lordganj and submitted an intimation that the incident was caused by the respondent and therefore, a false FIR was lodged. In this connection a defamatory matter was also published in daily newspaper Bhaskar on 18.10.2011. After due investigation SHO, Lordganj, found that the FIR was not correct and therefore, a final report of closure of the case was submitted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate which was accepted on 22.6.2012. Thereafter, the respondent has moved a criminal complaint to register offences under sections 182, 211 and 499 of I.P.C. By the impugned order the learned JMFC registered a complaint of offence under section 211 of I.P.C only. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that such offence could not be registered unless the provisions under section 195(1) (b)(i) of Cr.P.C would have been followed. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment passed by the Full Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of “Narayan Ramchandra Karmbelkar v. The State” (1972 Cri.L.J 1446) in which it is held that no such complaint can directly be filed. The complaint in writing is to be filed by the Magistrate under section 195(1)(b) of the CrPC. 4. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment passed by the Full Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of “Narayan Ramchandra Karmbelkar v. The State” (1972 Cri.L.J 1446) in which it is held that no such complaint can directly be filed. The complaint in writing is to be filed by the Magistrate under section 195(1)(b) of the CrPC. 4. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that in the case of “Iqbal Singh Marwah and another v. Meenakshi Marwah and another” [ (2005) 4 SCC 370 ] the Hon’ble apex Court in para 23 has held that the broad view of clause (b)(ii) of section 195(1) of CrPC i.e extending it to cases where forgery of document is committed prior to that document being produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court would render the victim of such forgery or forged document remediless in case where the Court may not consider it expedient in the interest of justice to make a complaint. Any interpretation which leads to a situation where the victim of crime is registered remediless has to be discarded. It is further submitted that such a view of full Bench was also followed in the case of “George Bhaktan v. Rabindra Lele and others” (2014 AIR SCW 6532) and therefore, it is submitted that the Magisterial Court could take cognizance in the case directly. 5. The trial Court has registered the case of offence under section 211 of the I.P.C and for registration of such a case the provision of section 195(1)(b)(i) of CrPC is clear that if Court has to take a cognizance of offence under section 211 of IPC. then a written complaint is required from the Court concerned who, finds that such offence was made out. In the present case, the closure report was accepted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jabalpur and therefore, it was for the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jabalpur to send a complaint against the applicant either soumoto or on the application under section 340 of Cr.P.C filed by the respondent. Provision of section 195 of CrPC are mandatopry in nature. The judgment passed by the full Bench of the apex Court in the case of Iqbal Singh Marwah (supra) and subsequent case of George Bhaktan (supra) are related with the provisions of section 195(1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C relating to forged documents. Provision of section 195 of CrPC are mandatopry in nature. The judgment passed by the full Bench of the apex Court in the case of Iqbal Singh Marwah (supra) and subsequent case of George Bhaktan (supra) are related with the provisions of section 195(1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C relating to forged documents. In those judgments Hon’ble the apex Court did not generalize the factual position of those cases for the entire sub section (b) of section 195(1) of the CrPC. The position of a forged document is different and the victim of that forged document should not remain remediless but, in case of false FIR, it is not held by Hon’ble the apex Court that same proposition would be applicable. Under such circumstances, after considering the provisions of section 195(1)(b)(i) of CrPC, it was for the respondent to move an application under section 340 of CrPC so that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jabalpur would have sent a complaint of offence under section 211 of IPC against the applicant. The learned Magistrate has committed an error of law in registration of a complaint without getting any complaint from the concerned Magistrate. 6. The impugned order passed by the learned JMFC flouts the provisions of section 195(1)(b)(i) of CrPC and therefore, it appears to be perverse. 7. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion the petition under section 482 of the CrPC filed by the applicant Narmad Prasad Vishwakarma appears to be acceptable. It is a good case in which the inherent powers of this Court can be exercised. Consequently, the impugned order dated 21.12.2013 passed by the JMFC, Jabalpur registering a Criminal Complaint of offence under section 211 of the IPC is hereby set aside. The complaint is dismissed under section 203 of the CrPC. 8. The copy of the order be sent to the trial Court for information and compliance. Dr. Anuvad Shrivastava for applicant; Sanjay K. Agrawal for respondent.