Delhi District Court
State vs . Ramesh Kumar @ Raj Ramesh on 19 July, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. DHIRENDRA RANA: METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE02/WEST : DELHI
STATE Vs. Ramesh Kumar @ Raj Ramesh
FIR No. : 135/2003
U/SEC : 182 IPC
PS Hari Nagar Delhi
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R1315612005
JUDGMENT
Serial No. of the case 1911/II/05
Date of commission of offence 07.04.2003
Date of institution of the case 10.03.2005
Name of the complainant SI Karuna Sagar
Name of accused, parentage & Ramesh Kumar @ Raj Ramesh s/o
address Shishu Pal r/o VPO Pota, PS Kariva,
District Mahendergarh, Haryana.
Offence complained Section 182 IPC
Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
Date of arguments 16.07.2013
Final order Acquitted
Date of Judgment 19.07.2013
1. Vide this judgment I shall dispose off the present case filed by Inspector Karuna Sagar (hereinafter referred as IO) against Ramesh Kumar @ Raj Ramesh (hereinafter referred as accused) for committing offence under section 182 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as IPC).
FIR No. 135/2003 PS Hari Nagar Page No. 1 of 8 BRIEF FACTS:
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 07.04.2003 one complaint was made by the accused in PS Hari Nagar stating that his car bearing No. HR29J2183 model 2000 Opel Astra has been stolen on 05.04.2003 from Santoshi Mata Mandir, B Block, Hari Nagar, Delhi.
Present FIR was registered under section 379 IPC and investigation was handed over ASI Sukh Ram. Despite his best efforts, IO could not trace the vehicle and untrace report was filed on 30.04.2003.
3. On 01.12.2004 DD No. 27B was registered by SI Rajender Singh from AATS Special Staff, New Delhi West to the effect that complainant Ramesh Kumar @ Raj Ramesh has made a disclosure statement that he had lodged a false complaint of his car theft in the present case. He was in custody in case FIR No. 21/2000 PS Parliament Street. The present case was reopened and investigation was handed over to SI Karuna Sagar. He formally arrested the complainant as an accused in the present case. He collected the details of the stolen car from Ballabhgarh Transport Authority Haryana and from Citi Bank from where a car loan was sanctioned for the said vehicle. Section 182 IPC was added in the case and matter was investigated after taking permission under section 155 (2) CrPC.
4. In this back drop, charge sheet has been filed against accused for committing offence under section 182 IPC on 10.03.2005. Copies FIR No. 135/2003 PS Hari Nagar Page No. 2 of 8 under section 207 CrPC supplied to accused on the same day itself. Notice for the offence under section 182 IPC was served upon the accused on 24.09.2005 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, matter was put up for prosecution evidence. EVIDENCE RECORDED DURING TRIAL:
5. Prosecution has examined six witnesses to prove its case against the accused.
6. PW1 SI Sukhram exhibited the complaint given by the accused as Ex. PW1/A, his endorsement on the said complaint as Ex. PW1/B and site plan as Ex. PW1/C.
7. PW2 HC Ranbir Singh exhibited the copy of FIR as Ex. PW2/A.
8. PW3 Surender Singh, Registration Clerk, Registering Authority, Ballabhgarh. proved the record of the stolen vehicle as Ex. PW3/A. The vehicle was registered in the name of accused.
9. PW4 Sayed Shakir Hussain exhibited application under section 155 CrPC as Ex. PW4/A and complaint under section 195 CrPC as Ex. PW4/B.
10.PW5 Inspector Karuna Sagar deposed on the lines of investigation being carried out by him. He exhibited arrest memo of accused as Ex. PW5/A and disclosure statement of accused as Ex. PW5/B. He stated that vehicle was financed by Citi Bank and due to default in FIR No. 135/2003 PS Hari Nagar Page No. 3 of 8 payment of installments, the vehicle was seized by bank. He got recorded the statement of Abhishek, legal representative of the bank but the bank official did not supply the record of the car and loan documents to the IO during investigation. He also exhibited notice under section 91 CrPC given to In Charge Citi Bank for production of documents as Ex. PW5/C.
11. PW6 Jagdish Salwan appeared on behalf of Citi Bank and stated that the bank does not have any document qua car loan of the said vehicle.
12.Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed on 02.07.2013. Statement of accused under section 281 read with section 313 CrPC was recorded on 08.07.2013 in which all the incriminating evidence was put to him to which he denied in toto and submits that he had not lodged any false complaint qua the theft of his car and same was stolen on 05.04.2003 and he had disclosed all these facts to the IO. He opted not to lead any defence evidence.
13.I have heard the final argument put forth by ld. APP for the State and by accused himself.
BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
14. It is alleged against the accused that he gave false information to the police regarding theft of his car and that is why he has been charged under section 182 IPC. Before proceeding further I would like to FIR No. 135/2003 PS Hari Nagar Page No. 4 of 8 reproduce section 182 IPC here as under:
Section 182 IPC. False information, with intent to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person. "Whoever gives to any public servant any information which he knows or believes to be false, intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, such public servant
(a) to do or omit anything which such public servant ought not to do or omit if the true state of facts respecting which such information is given were known by him, or
(b) to use the lawful power of such public servant to the injury or annoyance of any person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both."
15.After going through section 182 IPC it is clear that to make out the offence under section 182 IPC, the information must be false and the accused should have reason to believe that such information was false at the time of giving such information to the public servant. It is further necessary to prove that false information was given intentionally to the public servant. Prosecution has to prove all the ingredients of section 182 IPC to prove the charge against the accused. In Subhash Vs. State (2009) SCC Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that if all the ingredients are not established by the offence, the FIR No. 135/2003 PS Hari Nagar Page No. 5 of 8 offence has to be treated as not have been committed.
16.Applying the ratio of Subhash Vs. State (discussed Supra) to the present set of facts, nothing has been brought on record by the IO or by the prosecution to prove the fact that information qua theft of vehicle was false. The complaint was lodged by the accused on 07.04.2003 at PS Hari Nagar. IO could not trace the vehicle and investigation was closed. On 01.12.2004, IO received information that accused has made a disclosure statement that he has lodged false complaint qua theft of his car. He was arrested by the IO and it transpired that vehicle was financed by Citi Bank. IO allegedly recorded statement of one official of Citi Bank namely Abhishek but documents qua sanctioning of car loan were not taken by the IO. It is stated by IO PW5 that documents were not given to him by Sh. Abhishek and he stated that record will be produced before the court. If the vehicle was not stolen and same was financed by the Citi Bank and was impounded by the Bank due to default in payment of installments then possession of the vehicle would have been with the bank. Generally in case of such default, the bank seizes the vehicle but in this case it is not brought on record whether the vehicle was seized by the bank or not and what was the date of the seizure. During investigation IO also failed to trace out the vehicle to prove the fact that given information was false. IO should have collected the FIR No. 135/2003 PS Hari Nagar Page No. 6 of 8 documents from the bank and he should have recovered the vehicle but same is not done by him. It is hard to believe that the bank official stated to the IO that documents shall be produced before the court and were not handed over to him. IO should have called for the record qua seizure of the vehicle and loan file of the vehicle from the concerned bank. In absence of any loan file of the above stated vehicle, non recovery of the vehicle and absence of date on which vehicle was seized by the bank, this court cannot presume that any car loan was sanctioned by Citi Bank. In fact, what has been proved by prosecution through PW3 is that per record, accused is the registered owner of the vehicle till date. Prosecution has failed to prove the essential ingredients of the offence that false information was given by the complainant to the police. Actually apart from disclosure statement of accused, there is nothing on record against the accused and in my considered view the cancellation report should have been filed by the IO instead of charge sheet.
17. Hence, keeping in view the above discussion and material available on record, I am of the considered view the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused. I have no hesitation to say that accused has been falsely implicated in this case by the IO. He gave a complaint of theft of his car and from that day onwards he is running from pillar to post to get justice. He has undergone a FIR No. 135/2003 PS Hari Nagar Page No. 7 of 8 considerable amount of time in custody in this case just for no reason. Accused has faced ordeal of criminal proceedings for almost 10 long years. Accordingly, accused namely Ramesh Kumar @ Raj Ramesh is acquitted for committing offence under section 182 IPC.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT DHIRENDRA RANA
ON 19th July, 2013 MM02/WEST DELHI
FIR No. 135/2003 PS Hari Nagar Page No. 8 of 8