Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1018 (MP)

Ganesh Ram v. State of M. P.

2016-11-10

N.K.GUPTA

body2016
ORDER 1. The applicant has preferred the present revision against the order dated 23.9.2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vidisha in Criminal Case No.140/2011, whereas trial of offence under sections 211 and 182 of IPC were read over to the applicant. 2. Facts of the case, in short, are that the applicant-Ganesh Ram has lodged an FIR under section 155 of CrPC against Pappu alias Lalla, Durjan and Phoolbai since the police did not take any cognizance, he filed a criminal complaint before the competent Court. The Special Court under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act entertained that complaint as a Special Case No.150/2006 and vide judgment dated 16.4.2010 the accused persons namely Pappu alias Lalla, Durjan and Phoolbai were acquitted thereafter the SHO Police Station Karariya, District Vidisha had lodged a complaint against the applicant that he gave a false report and misused the Court proceedings. The complaint was registered under sections 182 and 211 of IPC and thereafter particulars of the offence were read over before the applicant. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it would be apparent that the SHO concerned did not comply the provisions of section 195 of the CrPC completely. According to the provisions under section 195(1)(b)(i) of the CrPC no Court shall take cognizance of offence under section 211 of IPC unless a complaint is filed by the concerned Court or person authorized by the Court. Hence, since no authorization letter was produced, the SHO concerned could not file a complaint of offence under section 211 of the IPC, and therefore, neither the Judicial Magistrate First Class Vidisha could take cognizance of the offence under section 211 of IPC nor could frame the charges. 5. Similarly, so far as the offence under section 182 of IPC is concerned, the trial Court vide judgment dated 16.4.2010 acquitted the accused Pappu alias Lalla, Durjan and Phool Bai, but it was not observed by the Court that FIR lodged by the applicant was baseless. Without getting such observation the SHO concerned was not competent to file a criminal complaint under section 182 of IPC. Hence, prima facie there is no evidence on record that the applicant had filed a false FIR against the accused persons. Without getting such observation the SHO concerned was not competent to file a criminal complaint under section 182 of IPC. Hence, prima facie there is no evidence on record that the applicant had filed a false FIR against the accused persons. It was for the trial Court to file a criminal complaint against the applicant that either he had lodged a false FIR or he gave false evidence before the trial Court, but in absence of such direction and opinion prima facie it cannot be said that the FIR under section 155 of CrPC lodged by the applicant was false or baseless. Hence, prima facie no offence under section 182 of IPC is made out against the applicant, and hence, charges could not be framed against the applicant for offence under section 182 of IPC. 6. Since the matter before the trial Court was a matter of summon trial, and therefore, there was no need to hear the parties before reading the particulars of offence before the applicant, and hence, the impugned order was not of final nature. It was for the applicant to file a petition under section 482 of CrPC against that order, however, looking to the factual position of the case, the matter may be considered as a petition under section 482 of CrPC and by invoking the powers of this Court under section 482 of CrPC the order dated 23.9.2011 is hereby set aside. The trial Court is directed to drop the proceedings against the applicant. 7. A copy of the order be sent to the Court below for information.