Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2570 (RAJ)

Bhanwar Lal v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-10-11

DINESH MEHTA

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. Instant petition lays challenge to proceedings pending before the Sessions Judge, Sirohi pursuant to a complaint filed by the Station House Officer, Sheoganj. 2. Precisely narrated, the facts relevant for the present purposes are that the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') alleging offences under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') against the accused persons. 3. On conclusion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer found the allegation/accusation to be false and thus, a complaint alleging petitioner to have committed offence under Section 211 of the IPC was filed by the Station House Officer, Sheoganj. 4. In furtherance of the complaint so filed, the trial court took cognizance against the petitioner and committed the matter to the Sessions Court for trial. 5. The basic fulcrum for challenging the proceedings pending before the Sessions Court whereby, the petitioner is being tried for the offence punishable under Section 211 of IPC is, that the proceedings cannot be initiated pursuant to a complaint filed by the Investigating Officer. 6. Mr. Bharat Singh argued that the petitioner can be prosecuted only pursuant to a written complaint filed by the court or its authorised officer and not in furtherance of a complaint filed by the Station House Officer concerned. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the provisions contained in Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Code and proviso thereto and relied upon the order passed by Jaipur Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Hemant Kumar v. State of Rajasthan in S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) No.5732/2018. 7. Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, argued that petitioner's contention is untenable in law. It was argued that merely because the FIR was ordered to be registered pursuant to a complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 156(3) of the Code, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Code will be attracted. 8. He argued that the wrong done or falsehood of the petitioner was not "in any proceedings before the court" and the same as a matter of fact, lay in the complaint filed by him under Section 156(3) of the Code pursuant whereto, the FIR came to be registered. 8. He argued that the wrong done or falsehood of the petitioner was not "in any proceedings before the court" and the same as a matter of fact, lay in the complaint filed by him under Section 156(3) of the Code pursuant whereto, the FIR came to be registered. It was argued by learned Public Prosecutor that since the FIR was registered by the Station House Officer concerned, he was well within his rights to initiate petitioner's prosecution for the offence under Section 211 of IPC, when it came to his knowledge that the petitioner has filed a false complaint. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. The facts are undisputed to the extent that it was pursuant to a complaint filed under Section 156(3) of the Code that the subject FIR came to be registered. 11. In the opinion of this Court, proceedings under Section 156(3) of the Code are not essentially "proceedings of court" so as to attract inhibition given under Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Code. As a matter of fact, it is only a mode of initiating investigation of a cognizable offence by the police officer. And, since the FIR has been registered on wrong and incorrect assertions of facts, the Station House Officer was well within his rights to file a complaint. 12. In the opinion of this Court, the exercise of power by the court under Section 156(3) of the Code and consequential direction to the police officer to investigate and/or register an FIR cannot be treated to be a proceeding of the court so as to attract provisions of Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Code. Similarly, the incorrect assertion which the petitioner has made in the complaint cannot be said to have been made during the proceedings of the court. 13. That apart, Section 211 of IPC is having wide span, it not only covers the cases of information being registered as an FIR but also the cases in which FIR is registered pursuant to a complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code. 13. That apart, Section 211 of IPC is having wide span, it not only covers the cases of information being registered as an FIR but also the cases in which FIR is registered pursuant to a complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code. Use of expression "institutes or causes to be instituted any criminal proceeding against that person, or falsely charges any person with having committed an offence, knowing that there is no just or lawful ground for such proceeding or charge against that person" brings within its fold the cases emanating from a complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code. 14. So far as the judgment cited by Mr. Rathore in the case of Hemant Kumar (supra) is concerned, it was a case when said petitioner was being tried before the court and during such trial, a compromise came to be filed and based on the facts peculiar to that case, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court quashed the FIR on two counts, including the ground that the complaint in such case could only have been filed by the court's officer. It was so held, because, the allegation against such petitioner (Hemant Kumar) was for making incorrect statements during the court proceedings. 15. As against this, facts of the present case are starkly different. The allegation against the petitioner is, that he has got the FIR registered on the basis of false assertions, falling foul to Section 211 of IPC. The protection of Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Code does not come to rescue the petitioner because the falsehood was in the complaint itself, which was the genesis of initiation of investigation, may be consequent to order of the Court. Since he has caused institution of criminal proceedings, the petitioner cannot escape his prosecution under Section 211 of the IPC. 16. In view of the discussions foregoing, this Court does not find any substance and merit in petitioner's contentions. The petition, therefore, fails. 17. The stay application also stands disposed of.