Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Hari And Another vs State Of Haryana on 21 October, 2013
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Crl.Misc.No.M- 1518 of 2011 (O&M) 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Crl.Misc.No.M- 1518 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision :.21.10 .2013
Ram Hari and another
......Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana
.......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.Ashit Malik, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.
****
SABINA, J.
By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. for short), petitioners have sought quashing of criminal complaint No.35/1 dated 16.1.2010 titled 'Court on its own motion vs. Ram Hari and another', under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' for short) (Annexure P-9), and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including summoning order dated 16.1.2010 (Annexure P-10).
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the court had erred in initiating proceedings against the petitioners under Section 340 Cr.P.C. In fact, petitioners had supported the prosecution case but the accused were acquitted by the trial Court. Learned Devi Anita 2013.10.23 15:59 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M- 1518 of 2011 (O&M) 2 counsel has further submitted that every incorrect or false statement did not make it incumbent on the court to order prosecution of the complainant/ witness. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in M.S.Ahlawat vs. State of Haryana 1994 (4) RCR (Criminal) 718, wherein, it was held as under:-
"5. Chapter XI of IPC deals with*false evidence and of fences against public justice' and Section 193 occurring therein provides for punishment for giving or fabricating false evidence in a judicial proceeding. Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) provides that where an act amounts to an of fence of contempt of the lawful authority of public servants or to an of fence against public justice such as giving false evidence under Section 193 IPC, etc. or to an of fence relating to documents actually used in a court, private prosecutions are barred absolutely and only the court in relation to which the of fence was committed may initiate proceedings. Provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C. are mandatory and no court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of any of the of fences mentioned therein unless there is a complaint in writing as required under that Section. It is settled law that every incorrect or false statement does not make it incumbent upon the court to order prosecution, but to exercise judicial discretion to order prosecution only in the larger Devi Anita interest of the administration of justice. 2013.10.23 15:59 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M- 1518 of 2011 (O&M) 3
6. Section 340 Cr.P.C. prescribes the procedure as to how a complaint may be preferred under Section 195 Cr.P.C. While under Section 195 Cr.P.C. it is open to the court before which the of fence was committed to prefer a complaint for the prosecution of the of fender, Section 340 Cr.P.C. prescribes the procedure as to how that complaint may be preferred. Provisions under Section 195 Cr.P.C. are mandatory and no court can take cognizance of of fences referred to therein. It is in respect of such of fences the court has jurisdiction to proceed under Section 340 Cr.P.C. and a complaint outside the provisions of Section 340 Cr.P.C. cannot be filed by any civil, revenue or criminal court under its inherent jurisdiction."
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition.
In the present case, petitioner No.1 had lodged FIR No.122 dated 20.3.2007 under Sections 304-B/ 34 IPC registered at police station City Ballabgarh against Khem Chand and others on the allegation that his daughter Harsha Nidhi had committed suicide on account of harassment meted out to her by the accused on account of demand of dowry. Trial Court vide judgment dated 19.12.2009 (Annexure P-7) ordered the acquittal of the accused. The trial Court held that, in fact, relations between complainant and the accused were cordial. Trial court also held that the petitioner No.1 had made false statement while denying execution of document Mark D-1/ D-A Devi Anita and petitioner No.2 had not gone to Ballabgarh along with 2013.10.23 15:59 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M- 1518 of 2011 (O&M) 4 complainant on 20.3.2007, thus, had made false statement in the court and were liable to be prosecuted.
Daughter of petitioner No.1 had got married to accused Kapoor Chand on 28.11.2005. Daughter of the complainant died due to burn injuries suffered by her in the house of her in-laws on 20.3.2007. Thus, daughter of petitioner No.1 had died an unnatural death in the house of her in-laws within 1 ½ year of her marriage.
As per the report of the handwriting expert, possibility of questioned writing on mark D-1 to have been written by petitioner No.1 could not be ruled out. Thus, in the present case, petitioner No.1 had denied that he had written Mark D-1 but as per the report of the expert, the possibility that it had been written by him could not be ruled out. So far as petitioner No.2 is concerned, the court found that the said witness had not gone to Ballabgarh with the complainant on 20.3.2007 and had thus made a false statement before the court. Petitioner No.1 had lost his daughter, who had died on account of burn injuries suffered by her in the house of her in-laws. The court should have taken in consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Petitioners must have been upset because the daughter of petitioner No.1 had died an un-natural death in the house of her in-laws within 1 ½ years of her marriage. Although, petitioners had been unsuccessful in establishing their case and in their anxiety to seek punishment of the accused, they made the controvertial statements in the court. Trial Court acquitted the accused of the charges framed against them but the facts of the Devi Anita present case did not require initiation of proceedings under Section 2013.10.23 15:59 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M- 1518 of 2011 (O&M) 5 340 Cr.P.C. against the petitioners.
Keeping in view the larger interest of justice in mind, it would be just and expedient to quash the order dated 16.1.2010 (Annexure P-10) summoning the petitioners under Section 193 IPC.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Criminal complaint No.35/1 dated 16.1.2010 (Annexure P-9) and summoning order dated 16.1.2010 (Annexure P-10) are quashed.
(SABINA) JUDGE October 21, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.23 15:59 I am approving this document Chandigarh