Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Govind Singh vs State (2024:Rj-Jd:35944) on 30 August, 2024
[2024:RJ-JD:35944]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 492/2020
Govind Singh S/o Late Shri Ganpat Singh, By Caste Rajput, R/o
Upeda, Bar, Ps Raipur, District Pali (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan through P.P.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Sonu Rathore a/w
Ms. Kamini Rathore.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. VS Rajpurohit, PP assisted by
Mr.RS Bhati, AGA.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order 30/08/2024
1. Petitioner herein is challenging the orders dated 03.08.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaitaran, District Pali, whereby the revision petition of the petitioner was dismissed, which was filed against the order dated 20.06.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bar, District Pali, in Case No. 810/2016, vide which, the learned trial court while taking cognizance of the offences summoned the petitioner on the complaint filed by the SHO, Raipur under Section 182/211 IPC.
2. Brief facts of the case are that earlier petitioner/Govind Singh filed a private complaint dated 08.10.2015, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bar, under Sections 341, 323, 209, 452 and 380 IPC against one Ajay Singh and the Court acting upon the same sent the matter to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The SHO, Raipur in pursuance thereto registered FIR 06/2016 but during investigation found the complaint to be false (Downloaded on 27/09/2024 at 08:43:20 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:35944] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-492/2020] and had submitted negative FR before the trial court. Thereafter, the SHO, Raipur, filed complaint under Section 182/211 IPC before the learned court against the petitioner. Vide order dated order dated 20.06.2016 the learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offences ascribed to the petitioner and summoned him. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached the learned revision court. However, the learned Revisional court who, vide its impugned order dated 03.08.2019, rejected the revision petition and affirmed the order of the trial court. Hence, this petition.
3. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and have perused the orders impugned.
4. Learned counsel representing the petitioner fervently contends along the same lines as pleaded in the petition. The primary contention is that only the Court could initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioner under Sections 182 & 211 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), alleging the petitioner's involvement in filing a false private complaint before the court. The police official had no authority to file the complaint under Section 182/211 of I.P.C..
5. Reference may be had to this context to a judgment rendered in Chanchal Kumar versus State of Rajasthan 1. Relevant whereof, is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"7. The provisions of Section 195(1)(a) read as under :
"195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offence against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence-
1Rajasthan High Court - 2012 0 Supreme(Raj) 1735 (Downloaded on 27/09/2024 at 08:43:20 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:35944] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-492/2020] (1) No Court shall take cognizance-(a) (i) of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 to 1860), or
(ii) of any abatement of, or attempt to commit such offence, or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate."
Section 182 I.P.C. reads as under :
"182. 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 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."
8. Section 182 I.P.C. would be applicable if the petitioner had given a false information to the public servant i.e. the SHO. This admittedly is not the position in the case at hand.
9. In the instant case, the alleged false information has not been given to the public servant but has allegedly given by way of the complaint filed in the Court and therefore otherwise also Section 182 IPC is not applicable to the facts of the instant case."
10. In this view of the matter, it is apparent that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner are without jurisdiction and absolutely unwarranted. Ex facie, merely because the petitioner has filed a false complaint in the Court, it cannot be said that the petitioner has committed an offence under Section 182 I.P.C. The offence if any could be said to be committed by the petitioner would be covered under Section 211 I.P.C. Obviously, in this case, no cognizance has been taken for the said offence."
6. Petitioner, if at all, gave any wrong information in his private complaint it was not given to the I.O./S.H.O. I am in respectful agreement with the views expressed in the aforesaid judgment (Downloaded on 27/09/2024 at 08:43:20 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:35944] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-492/2020] and see no reason, why in the analogous situation herein, the benefit thereof be not given to the petitioner.
7. Moreover, it transpires that petitioner is currently stated to be a senior citizen, 88 years old and is also stated to be suffering from age related issues.
8. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 20.06.2016 (Annex.6) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bar, District Pali, and 03.08.2019, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaitaran, District Pali, initiating proceedings under Sections 182/211 of the IPC and affirming the same, are set aside, with consequences to follow.
9. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA), J 89-/Jitender//-
Whether fit for reporting- Yes / No
(Downloaded on 27/09/2024 at 08:43:20 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)