Delhi District Court
Ct Case No. 15/18 Ramesh Kumar vs . Rinku And Ors. Page 1/24 on 11 February, 2021
1
IN THE COURT OF MS RAVINDER BEDI: ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE02; E COURT: SHAHDARA:
KARKARDOOMA COURT: DELHI.
CT Case No. 15/18
Ramesh Kumar
s/o Sh. Ram Chander
r/o D3, 484, Nand Nagri
Delhi. ....... Complainant.
Versus
1. Rinku @ Rohit
s/o Lt. Jagan Prasad
r/o D3/487488,
Nand Nagri, Delhi.
2. SHO/Insp. Rai Singh (then SHO)
P.S. Nand Nagri, Delhi.
3. Insp. J.P. Meena (Then LO./SubInsp)
4. ASI Bhagmal (then Constable)
accused no. 2 to 4 lastly posted in
P.S. Nand Nagri.
5. Insp. Rakesh Kumar (then SI N/E)
Lastly posted in P.G. Cell/Vigilance Branch,
NorthEast District, Seelampur, Delhi. ............ Accused.
Date of Institution : 28.11.2018
Date of Arguments : 28.01.2021
Date of Order : 11.02.2021
CT Case No. 15/18 Ramesh Kumar Vs. Rinku and ors. page 1/24
2
ORDER
1. The Complainant filed a complaint for the offences under Section 166/167/182/191/192193/211/120B/34 IPC and Sections 3(1)
(viii) & 3(2) (ii) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Extent and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 1989 (hereinafter referred to as Atrocities Act) against the Respondents for the acts and conduct of the Respondents committed by them. The respondent no.1 is one Rinku and respondent no.2 to 5 are police officials.
2. Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to briefly refer to the facts to indicate the broad contours of the matter set out as herein below: 2.1 The respondent no.1 a criminal minded person, in active collusion with respondent no.2 to 4 got registered a false FIR no. 106/05 u/s 324/341/34 IPC at P.S. Nand Nagri on 17.02.2005 against Complainant; that Complainant was acquitted in the said case by the Judgment dated 27.06.2018 passed by Ld. MM Sh. Pankaj Arora.
2.2. On 25.10.2004, respondent no.1 and his father (since deceased) assaulted brother of Complainant. A complaint vide DD No. 8A dated 25.10.2004 was registered against them, but the police did not take any action. The Complainant filed a complaint u/s 156 (3) CT Case No. 15/18 Ramesh Kumar Vs. Rinku and ors. page 2/24 3 Cr. PC before the court and on 08.02.2005, an FIR No. 102/05 under Sections 324/325/506/34 IPC and under Section 3(x) of the Atrocities Act was registered against respondent no.1 and his family.
2.3 that respondent no.2, the then SHO in collusion with respondent no.1 might have adviced them to make false complaint against Complainant and accordingly respondent no.1 alongwith his family came to the house of Complainant on 17.02.2005, started hurling abuses in filthy language and threatened Complainant to withdraw case FIR No. 102/05 against him and on his refusal to do so, respondent no.1 went out of Complainant's house and came back with a sharp weapon like blade, assaulted himself on his left hand, caused self inflicted injuries upon him to falsely implicate the Complainant. DD No. 20A dated 17.02.2005 was registered and police was called. Respondent no.2 did not register the complaint of the Complainant and instead supported respondent no.1.
2.4 that on 17.02.2005, Complainant alongwith his neighbours visited the police station and gave as an evidence, his sweater to respondent no.2, but respondent no.2 created false evidence against the Complainant alleging that the same was recovered by CT Case No. 15/18 Ramesh Kumar Vs. Rinku and ors. page 3/24 4 them on 18.02.2005 from Complainant's residence. The recovery of sweater on 18.02.2005 was false as the same was deposited in Malkhana on 17.02.2005 vide diary no. 2817. On 18.02.2005, Complainant alongwith his family were called at P.S. Nand Nagri and were forced to sign some blank papers by Respondent no.3. Complainant thus came to know of collusion of respondent no.2, 3 and 4 with respondent no.1 in getting registered a false case against him and his brothers by creating and fabricated such false evidences; that chargesheet of the said case was filed with such false evidences. The MLC of respondent no.1 also mentioned the injury upon the hand of respondent no.1 as 'self inflicted injuries'.
2.5 that Complainant made complaints to the Commissioner of Police, National Commission and other higher authorities on 21.02.2005 and 03.03.2005, on which a vigilance enquiry was conduced by ACP against Respondents but they somehow managed the Enquiry Report. DCP deliberately gave wrong information and gave another false reply on 06.09.2007 to the RTI application of the Complainant by stating that the allegations in the complaint of complaint of Complainant were baseless.
CT Case No. 15/18 Ramesh Kumar Vs. Rinku and ors. page 4/24 5
3. Complainant on account of the aforementioned alleged acts and conduct of the Respondents pleaded that the Respondents committed various offences punishable u/s 166/167/182/191/211/120B/34 IPC and Sections 3(1) (viii) & 3(2) (ii) of the Atrocities Act. It was alleged that the bar contained u/s 197 of Cr. PC and Section 140 of Delhi Police Act was not applicable in the present case as except R1, other Respondents were police officials and had committed acts i.e. created false and fabricated documentary evidences, planted bogus witnesses with a malafide intent to ruin career of Complainant and his brothers and such acts were not part of their duties and were rather in excess to the same.
4. Vide order dated 05.01.2019 the Ld. Predecessor of this Court placed the matter for recording of PreSummoning Evidence. Complainant (CW1), HC Neeraj Kumar (CW2) and Rohit Verma (CW3) were examined on behalf of the Complainant. Arguments on the point of summoning were heard at length. The Complainant also placed his written submissions on record.
5. Ld. Counsel for the Complainant has argued that the acquittal of the Complainant in FIR no. 106/2005 on 27.06.2018 is a matter of record. He submits that the falsity of the prosecution case was established on 27.06.2018 when judgment came in favour of the Complainant and therefore the cause of action to file the present Complainant arose on 27.06.2018 only and therefore the cognizance of the offences was not barred by limitation. He argued that sanction CT Case No. 15/18 Ramesh Kumar Vs. Rinku and ors. page 5/24 6 under Section 197 Cr. PC and under provisions of Delhi Police Act was not required for prosecution of Respondent/Accused No. 2 to 5 as the offences alleged against them were beyond the colour of their duty. He also pressed that offence under Section 191 and 192 are made out against the Accused/Respondents as all of them gave false statements on oath before the trial Court and prepared false documents knowingly. He further emphasised that this court was empowered to proceed against the Respondents/accused persons as the bar of Section 195 Cr. PC was not applicable. In support of submissions, he relied upon Local Govt. v. Mt. Guji AIR 1935 Nag 69 and Muthuvelu Kudamburan v. Samayya Kudamburan AIR 1937 Madras 8.
6. I have heard Ld. Counsel for complainant, perused written submissions and presummoning evidence on record. Pertinently, the present complaint is filed by the Complainant against a private individual i.e. Accused/Respondent No.1 and against Police officials i.e. Respondent/Accused No. 2 to 5 for offences u/s 166/167/182/191/192/193/211 and Section 3 (i) (vii) & 3 (2) (ii) of SC & ST Act on the ground that a false case FIR no. 106/2005 was registered against him by the connivance of Accused/Respondent No.2 to 5 and Accused/Respondent No.1 in which vide judgment dated 27.06.2018, he has been acquitted.
CT Case No. 15/18 Ramesh Kumar Vs. Rinku and ors. page 6/24 7
7. The relevant statutory provisions of IPC can be referred to first before adverting to the submissions of ld. Counsel for parties. Section 166 and 167 IPC read as under: Section 166 IPC 'Public servant disobeying law, with intent to cause injury to any person. 'Whoever, being a public servant, knowingly disobeys any direction of the law as to the way in which he is to conduct himself as such public servant, intending to cause or knowing it to be likely that he will, by such disobedience, cause injury to any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to 1 year or with fine, or with both.' Section 167 IPC 'Public servant framing an incorrect document with intent to cause injury. -
Whoever being a public servant, and being, as [such public servant, charged with the preparation or translation of any document or electronic record, frames, prepares or translates that document or electronic record] in a manner which he knows or believes to be incorrect, intending thereby to cause or knowing it to be likely that he may thereby cause CT Case No. 15/18 Ramesh Kumar Vs. Rinku and ors. page 7/24 8 injury to any person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 3 years, or with fine, or with both.
8. Section 182 of the IPC prescribes the punishment for giving of false information with an intent to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person, reads as under : "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 be 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 6 months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both."
CT Case No. 15/18 Ramesh Kumar Vs. Rinku and ors. page 8/24 9
9. Section 468, 469 and 473 of Cr. PC are relevant for the question of period of limitation for filing of complaint under section 166/167 and 182 IPC. Reading the above provisions, clearly the offence under Section 166 IPC is punishable with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. The offence under Section 167 IPC is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend upto three years or with fine or with both. The offence of giving false information with an intent to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to six months or with fine or with both. Section 468 Cr. PC mandates that no court shall take cognizance of an offence beyond the period of limitation of one year if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year.
10. Section 468 Cr. PC cannot be read in isolation as the commencement of period of limitation is regulated by the provisions of Section 469 Cr. PC. Therefore it is clear that the period of limitation in relation to an offence would commence from different dates depending upon three situations as noticed in section 469 (a) (b) and (c) Cr. PC. Thus period of limitation would commence from the date of offence or from some different dates depending about the knowledge of the offence or the identity of the offender. Accordingly, the period of limitation would commence from the date of offence if the identity of the offender as well as the offences is known.
CT Case No. 15/18 Ramesh Kumar Vs. Rinku and ors. page 9/24 10
11. In State of Punjab Vs. Sarwan Singh 1981 Crlj 722, Hon'ble Apex Court held that the object of the Cr. PC in putting a bar of limitation on prosecution was clearly to prevent the parties from filing cases after a long time, as a result of which the material evidence may disappear and also to prevent abuse of the process of the Court by filing vexatious and belated prosecutions long after the date of offence.
12. The offence u/s 182 IPC is complete when the complaint is found to be false. Thus taking of cognizance of the offence punishable under section 166 and 182 IPC on the basis of complaint filed against Respondents after expiry of period of limitation of one year as prescribed under section 468 Cr. PC is barred by limitation. Similarly, the cognizance of offence under section 167 IPC under similar situation after the expiry of period of limitation of three years as prescribed under section 468 Cr. PC is barred.
13. Adverting to the facts of the case, Complainant has alleged certain incidents in the year 2004 in particular of dated 25.10.2004 when respondent no.1 and his family allegedly committed assault on Complainant's brother and the DD was registered. The grievance of the Complainant emanates from the fact that police did not act despite the incident and instead of arresting the other party, a false criminal case was foisted upon the Complainant by the respondent no.1 who colluded with other Respondents. The grievance of the Complainant further is that certain false evidences were created CT Case No. 15/18 Ramesh Kumar Vs. Rinku and ors. page 10/24 11 during investigation of the said case FIR against which, various complaints were filed by the Complainant with higher authorities i.e. including 21.02.2005 and 03.03.2005 and an enquiry was initiated against respondent no.2 and 3 but somehow the Respondents maneuvered the said enquiry.
14. Thus it can be stated that the alleged offenders as well as the offences were known to the Complainant in the year 2005 when the said acts were committed by the Respondents. The complaint, therefore, could be filed within three years from the date of incident i.e. 25.10.2004. The complaint is however filed only on 28.11.2018 and thus it can safely be stated that the period of limitation as prescribed under section 468 Cr. PC had already expired.
15. It is settled position under law that the plea of bar of limitation can be raised at any stage of proceedings and that even when it was not raised, the court has ample power and authority in the light of sections 468 and 473 Cr. PC. Reliance can be placed on the judgments in (Moti Pathak and ors. Vs. State of UP 1988 (2) Crime page 659).
16. Having observed so, a bar is attracted to take cognizance of the offences.
17. Now coming to the second issue, it is clear that the alleged offences are stated to have been committed by Respondent /Accused No.2 to 5, who are admittedly police officials/public servants. Section 197 Cr. PC read with Section 140 of DP Act bars CT Case No. 15/18 Ramesh Kumar Vs. Rinku and ors. page 11/24 12 cognizance of the offences against public servants in the absence of sanction under Section 197 Cr. PC r/w Section 140 of Delhi Police Act. In D. Devaraja v. Owais Sabeer Hussain (2020) 7 SCC 695, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while elaborating on the significance of the sanction has observed that:
"68.Sanction of then government to prosecute, a police officer, for any related to the discharge of an official duty, is imperative to protect the police officer from facing harrasive, retaliatory, revengeful and frivolous proceedings. The requirement of sanction from the government, to prosecute would give an upright police officer the confidence to discharge his official duties efficiently, without fear of vindictive retaliation by initiation of criminal action, from which he would be protected under Section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure, read with Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act. At the same time, if the policeman has committed a wrong, which constitutes a criminal offence and renders him liable for prosecution, he can be prosecuted with sanction from the appropriate government.
18. If in doing an official duty a police man has acted in excess of the duty, but there is a reasonable connection between the act and the performance of the official duty, the fact that the act CT Case No. 15/18 Ramesh Kumar Vs. Rinku and ors. page 12/24 13 alleged is in excess of duty will not be a ground enough to deprive the policeman of the protection of the government sanction for initiation of criminal action against him. The plea thus of the Complainant that acts of Respondents were in excess of their duties and bar under Section 197 Cr. PC being not applicable has to be rejected.
19. In Pukhraj v. State of Rajasthan and Another (1973) 2 SCC 701 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held: "2. ..While the law is well settled, the difficulty really arises in applying the law to the facts of any particular case. The intention behind the section is to prevent public servants from being unnecessarily harassed. The section is not restricted only to cases of anything purported to be done in good faith, for a person who ostensibly acts in execution of his duty still purports so to act, although he may have a dishonest intention. Nor is it confined to cases where the act, which constitutes the offence, is the official duty of the official concerned. Such an interpretation would involve a contradiction in terms, because an offence can never be an official duty. The offence should have been committed when an act is done in the execution of duty or when an act purports to be done in execution of duty. The test appears to be not that the offence is capable of being committed only by a public servant and not by anyone else, but that it is committed by a public servant in CT Case No. 15/18 Ramesh Kumar Vs. Rinku and ors. page 13/24 14 an act done or purporting to be done in the execution of duty. The section cannot be confined to only such acts as are done by a public servant directly in pursuance of his public office, though in excess of the duty or under a mistaken belief as to the existence of such duty. Nor need the act constituting the offence be so inseparably connected with the official duty as to form part and parcel of the same transaction. What is necessary is that the offence must be in respect of an act done or purported to be done in the discharge of an official duty. It does not apply to acts done purely in a private capacity by a public servant. Expressions such as the 'capacity in which the act is performed', 'cloak of office' and 'professed exercise of the office' may not always be appropriate to describe or delimit the scope of section. An act merely because it was done negligently does not cease to be one done or purporting to be done in execution of a duty..."
20. In Virupaxappa Veerappa Kadampur v. State of Mysore AIR 1963 SC 849, a three Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the context of Section 161 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, which is similar to Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act, interpreted the phrase "under colour of duty" to mean "acts done under the cloak of duty, even though not by virtue of the duty".
CT Case No. 15/18 Ramesh Kumar Vs. Rinku and ors. page 14/24 15 "It appears to us that the words under colour of duty have been used in s.161(1) to include acts done under the cloak of duty, even though not by virtue of the duty. When he (the police officer) prepares a false Panchnama or a false report he is clearly using the existence of his legal duty as a cloak for his corrupt action or to use the words in stroud's Dictionary as a veil to his falsehood. The acts thus done in dereliction of his duty must be held to have been done "under colour of the duty".
21. Likewise, in K.K. Patel and Another vs. State of Gujarat and Anr. (2000) 6 SCC 195 the Hon'ble Supreme Court referring to Virupaxappa Veerappa Kadampur (supra) and held: "17. The indispensable ingredient of the said offence is that the offender should have done the act "being a public servant". The next ingredient close to its heels is that such public servant has acted in disobedience of any legal direction concerning the way in which he should have conducted as such public servant. For the offences under Section 167 and 219 IPC the pivotal ingredient is the same as for the offence under Section 166 IPC. The remaining offences alleged in the complaint, in the light of the averments made therein, CT Case No. 15/18 Ramesh Kumar Vs. Rinku and ors. page 15/24 16 are ancillary offences to the above and all the offences are parts of the same transaction. They could not have been committed without there being at least the colour of the office or authority which the appellants held."
22. While deliberating on the question at which stage the trial Court has to examine whether the sanction has been obtained and if not whether the criminal proceedings should be nipped in the bud, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in D. Devaraja v. Owais Sabeer Hussain (2020) 7 SCC 695 observed:
"76. While this Court has, in D.T. Virupakshappa (supra) held that the High Court had erred in not setting aside an order of the Trial Court taking cognizance of a complaint, in exercise of the power under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, in Matajog Dobey (supra) this Court held it is not always necessary that the need for sanction under Section 197 is to be considered as soon as the complaint is lodged and on the allegations contained therein. The Complainant may not disclose that the act constituting the offence was done or purported to be done in the discharge of official duty and/or under colour of duty. However the facts subsequently coming to light in course of the trial or upon police or CT Case No. 15/18 Ramesh Kumar Vs. Rinku and ors. page 16/24 17 judicial enquiry may establish the necessity for sanction. Thus, whether sanction is necessary or not may have to be determined at any stage of the proceedings."
23. The aforesaid judgments clearly lay down that if the act alleged in a complaint purported to be filed against a police official is reasonably connected to discharge of some official duty, proceedings cannot be entertained unless requisite sanction of the appropriate government is obtained under Section 197 Cr. PC and/or Section 140 of Delhi Police Act.
24. This Court proceeds to examine the facts as alleged in the complaint as well as presummoning evidence of CW1 to CW3 against Respondent/Accused No. 2 to 5. The allegations are that the accused/Respondent No. 2 to 5 registered a false FIR 106/2005 against the Complainant in connivance with Accused/Respondent No.1, made him sign a disclosure statement, recovered a sweater of the Complainant having blood stains on 18.02.2005 which was found to be deposited in Malkhana on 17.02.2005 vide DD No. 2817, eye witnesses to the incident were bogus and planted, allegations pertaining to managing of vigilance enquiry by the concerned Respondents/accused persons. In the opinion of this Court, the offences alleged are clearly in respect of acts done or purported to be done in discharge of the official duty of the concerned CT Case No. 15/18 Ramesh Kumar Vs. Rinku and ors. page 17/24 18 Respondents/accused persons. The wrong doing as alleged against the Respondent/accused No.2 to 5 could not have been committed without there being at least the colour of the office or the authority which the respondent/accused persons held.
25. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the view that sanction under Section 197 Cr. PC r/w 140 of DP Act was imperative for entertainment of proceedings against the concerned Respondents/accused persons.
26. As already observed in para 14 to 16 herein above, it is evident from facts that present Complaint has been filed in the year 2018. It is not the case of the Complainant that the identity of the alleged offenders/accused/respondent 2 to 5 was not known to the Complainant or the commission of the alleged acts as offences by respondent/accused persons were not within the knowledge of the Complainant. Ld. Counsel for the Complainant has stressed that the cause of action for filing the present complaint arose only on 27.06.2018 when judgment of acquittal came in favour of Complainant in FIR no. 106/2005. In the opinion of the Court, this submission is devoid of merits and deserves to be rejected.
27. This Court now proceeds to examine whether the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(i) is applicable for alleged acts as offences under Section 191/192/193/211 and for which procedure under Section 340 has to be followed. The Hon'ble Apex Court explaining the reason behind enactment of Section 195 Cr. PC in Patel Laljibhai CT Case No. 15/18 Ramesh Kumar Vs. Rinku and ors. page 18/24 19 Somabhai v. State of Gujarat (1971) 2 SCC 376 observed:
"7. The underlying purpose of enacting Section 195(1)(b) and (c) and Section 476, seems to be to control the temptation on the part of the private parties considering themselves aggrieved by the offences mentioned in those sections to start criminal prosecutions on frivolous, vexatious or insufficient grounds inspired by a revengeful desire to harass or spite their opponents. These offences have been selected for the court's control because of their direct impact on the judicial process. It is the judicial process, in other words the administration of public justice, which is the direct and immediate object or victim of those offence and it is only by misleading the courts and thereby perverting the due course of law and justice that the ultimate object of harming the private party is designed to be realised. As the purity 7of the proceedings of the court is directly sullied by the crime, the Court is considered to be the only party entitled to consider the desirability of complaining against the guilty party. The private party designed ultimately to be injured through the offence against the administration of public justice is undoubtedly entitled to move the court for persuading it to file the CT Case No. 15/18 Ramesh Kumar Vs. Rinku and ors. page 19/24 20 complaint. But such party is deprived of the general right recognized by Section 190 Cr. PC, of the aggrieved parties directly initiating the criminal proceedings. The offences about which the court alone, to the exclusion of the aggrieved private parties, is clothed with the right to complain may, therefore, be appropriately considered to be only those offences committed by a party to a proceeding in that court, the commission of which has a reasonably close nexus with the proceedings in that court so that it can, without embarking upon a completely independent and fresh inquiry, satisfactorily consider by reference principally to its records the expediency of prosecuting the delinquent party."
28. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Bandekar Brothers v. Prasad Vassudev (2020) SCC Online SC 707 has ruled that Section 195 Cr. PC is an exception to the general provision contained in Section 190 and creates an embargo on the power of the Court to take cognizance of certain type of offences enumerated under Section 195 Cr. PC and must necessarily follow the drill contained in Section 340 Cr. PC.
29. The point forcefully argued by the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant is that the provisions of Section 195 Cr. PC is not applicable in this case and the present complaint is maintainable.
CT Case No. 15/18 Ramesh Kumar Vs. Rinku and ors. page 20/24 21 However, this Court finds on perusing the Written Submissions of the Complainant in para 8(g) that the Complainant is pressing for offences under Section 191 and 192 against the Respondent/accused persons. However, in the succeeding paragraph 8 (h), the Complainant states that the provisions of Section 193 are not pressed here because the same are covered under Section 195(2)(i) Cr. PC, and for the same Complaint has to be lodged by the concerned court.
30. Be that as it may, this Court shall deal with this issue. Section 191 relates to the giving of false evidence whereas Section 192 relates to fabricating of false evidence intending that such evidence may appear in evidence in a judicial proceeding/public servant/arbitrator and that false material appearing in evidence may cause any person who in such proceeding is to form an opinion upon the evidence to form an erroneous opinion touching any material point. Section 193 prescribes the punishment for Section 191/192. Section 211 deals with institution of some criminal proceedings or making of a false charge against any person wot an intent to cause injury to that person having knowledge that there is no lawful ground for such proceeding or charge.
31. Section 195(1)(b)(i) Cr. PC bars the cognizance of any offence punishable under 193 to 196, 199, 205 to 211 and 228 when such an offence is alleged to have been committed in or in relation to any proceeding in any court except on a complaint in writing of that Court (S.340Cr. PC). It is apposite to refer to ML Sethi v. RP Kapoor CT Case No. 15/18 Ramesh Kumar Vs. Rinku and ors. page 21/24 22 AIR 1967 SC 528 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has envisaged three situations before the court to decide the question of taking cognizance for the offence under Section 211 IPC which are as under: that a proceeding in a Court may actually be pending at the point of time when cognizance is sought to be taken of the offence under Section 211 IPC.
that, though there may be no proceeding pending in any court in which or in relation to which the offence under Section 211 IPC could have been committed, there may have been a proceeding which had already concluded and the offence under Section 211 IPC may be alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to that proceeding.
It was observed that in both the latter two circumstances envisaged above, the bar to take cognizance under Section 195 (1)(b) Cr. PC would come into operation. The fact that the proceeding had concluded would be immaterial because Section 195 (1)(b) Cr. PC does not require that the proceeding in any Court must actually be pending at the time when the question of applying the bar under Section 195 Cr. PC arises.
32. In this connection, looking once again to the facts as alleged and evidence recorded, it culls out that Accused/Respondent No. 2 to 5 registered a false FIR 106/2005 against the Complainant in connivance with Accused/Respondent No.1, made him sign a CT Case No. 15/18 Ramesh Kumar Vs. Rinku and ors. page 22/24 23 disclosure statement, recovered a sweater of the Complainant having blood stains on 18.02.2005 which was found to be deposited in Malkhana on 17.02.2005 vide DD No. 2817, eye witnesses to the incident were bogus and planted, MLC of the accused showed the injuries to be selfinflicting. The record demonstrates that the alleged/purported facts have been committed in or in relation to judicial proceedings in FIR no. 106/2005 before the Ld. Trial court. Thus, in truth and substance, the allegations are in connection with offences falling under Section 195(1)(b)(i) Cr. PC and therefore prosecution for offences under S. 191/192/193/211 cannot be taken by way of the present complaint.
33. At this stage, it is important to refer to the observations made in State of Karnataka v. Hema Reddy (1981) 2 SCC 185:
"8. We agree with the view expressed by the learned Judge and hold that in cases where in the course of the same transaction an offence for which no complaint by a court is necessary under Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and an offence for which a complaint of a court is necessary under that subsection, are committed, it is not possible to split up and hold that the prosecution of the accused for the offences not mentioned in Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be upheld."
CT Case No. 15/18 Ramesh Kumar Vs. Rinku and ors. page 23/24 24
34. Having observed thus, I hold that as far as the offences as alleged under Section 3 (i) (vii) & 3 (2) (ii) of SC & ST Act are concerned, it is not possible to split them up and therefore the prosecution of the same is also barred under 195(1)(b) Cr. PC.
35. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I find that the present complaint is not maintainable. No sufficient grounds are made out by the Complainant to proceed further and as such the complaint deserved dismissal under Section 203 Cr. PC.
36. The complaint stands dismissed. File be consigned to record room as per rules. Digitally signed by RAVINDER BEDI RAVINDER Location: Karkardooma BEDI Courts, Delhi Date: 2021.02.11 16:40:32 +0530 Announced in the open court on (Ravinder Bedi) 11th day of February 2021 ASJ02 Shahdara Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
CT Case No. 15/18 Ramesh Kumar Vs. Rinku and ors. page 24/24