Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 450 (JHR)

Sahdeo Prasad v. State of Jharkhand

2023-03-29

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2023
JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. Heard Mr. Nishant Kumar Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Nehala Sharmin, learned counsel for the State. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 20.03.2013 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in connection with Govindpur (Barwadda) P.S. Case No. 415 of 2010, corresponding to G.R. No. 3902 of 2010, C.O. Case No. 44 of 2012, whereby, the cognizance has been taken against the petitioner under Sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad. 3. The FIR being Govindpur P.S. Case No. 415 of 2010 was registered at the relevant time when the petitioner was posted as Officer-in-Charge of Barwadda Police Station, Dhanbad. In the FIR, it was alleged that on 16.11.2010 at about 06:00 p.m. in the evening when he was doing his official duty, then he saw that one motorcycle was coming in high speed and on seeing this, the informant tried to stop him but he tried to flee away and on chase with two other police, he was apprehended. It was further alleged that the person so apprehended disclosed his name Dhirendra Singh, resident of village Birni, P.S. Nawadih, District Bokaro. It was also alleged that thereafter the informant asked for the relevant paper of the said motorcycle but the said person was not able to produce any paper with regard to the said motorcycle. It was further alleged that since the informant was having suspicion and accordingly he searched the body of the apprehended person and on search certain map and pamphlet on which it has been written that they protest Panchayat Election, which was going to be held. It was further alleged that the said pamphlet was issued by Naxal group. Thereafter, the informant searched dickey of the motorcycle and from the dickey several naxal literature were found. All the things were seized by the informant in presence of independent witnesses. It was also alleged in the FIR that thereafter the informant interrogated the apprehended person and on interrogation he did not give any satisfactory reply. In this background, the FIR was registered under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. 4. Mr. It was also alleged in the FIR that thereafter the informant interrogated the apprehended person and on interrogation he did not give any satisfactory reply. In this background, the FIR was registered under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. 4. Mr. Nishant Kumar Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said case was investigated and final form was submitted against the accused namely Dhirendra Singh and it was further observed that a proceeding under Section 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code should be instituted against the present petitioner as false information was given by the petitioner. He further submits that after submission of final form before the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, notice was issued to the present petitioner to file objection to the final report. He also submits that pursuant to the said notice, the petitioner filed a protest cum complaint petition before the court to which the case record was transferred. He submits that during the pendency of the said investigation, the sole accused Dhirendra Singh died. He further submits that thereafter a prosecution report was filed by the Officer-in-Charge, C.I.D. Team under Section 182/211 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and after perusing the said prosecution report, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioner under Section 182/211 of the Indian Penal Code vide order dated 20.03.2013. He further submits that the FIR was registered by this petitioner in a capacity of police officio and in that view of the matter, Sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code are not attracted. He submits that on the prosecution report of the CID, cognizance has been taken against the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner is also protected under Section 197 Cr.P.C. as he was discharging his official duty. 5. On the other hand, Ms. Nehala Sharmin, learned counsel for the State submits that the prosecution report was submitted against the petitioner and that is why, the learned court has taken cognizance under Section 182/211 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. 6. 5. On the other hand, Ms. Nehala Sharmin, learned counsel for the State submits that the prosecution report was submitted against the petitioner and that is why, the learned court has taken cognizance under Section 182/211 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. 6. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on the record including the contents of the FIR as well as the order taking cognizance, it transpires that the petitioner has lodged the FIR alleging therein that one motorcycle was coming in high speed and on seeing this, the informant tried to stop him but he tried to flee away and on chase with two other police, he was apprehended. The learned court has taken cognizance under Section 182/211 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code speaks of false information, with intent to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person and Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code speaks of false charge of offence made with intent to injure. Looking into the provisions made in Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code, it transpires that Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code is more serious offence than one punishable under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code. To invoke Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code, a false complaint is to be filed in Court, but under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code, there is no such requirement. A false complaint to a police or a public servant is sufficient. So the offence under Section 182 and Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code are distinct offences and a person under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be alternatively charged under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code. A reference may be made to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Brij Lal Palta, AIR 1969 SC 355 . 7. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the prosecution under Section 182/211 of the Indian Penal Code is not sustainable against the petitioner. A reference may be made to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Brij Lal Palta, AIR 1969 SC 355 . 7. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the prosecution under Section 182/211 of the Indian Penal Code is not sustainable against the petitioner. Accordingly, the order dated 20.03.2013 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in connection with Govindpur (Barwadda) P.S. Case No. 415 of 2010, corresponding to G.R. No. 3902 of 2010 and C.O. Case No. 44 of 2012 including the entire criminal proceedings, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad is, hereby, quashed. 8. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and disposed of. 9. Interim order, if any granted by this Court, stands vacated.