Kerala High Court
Kochanuvelli Kunhammad vs State Of Kerala on 18 January, 1966
Equivalent citations: AIR1966KER242, 1966CRILJ1136, AIR 1966 KERALA 242, 1967 KER LT 236
ORDER P.T. Raman Nayar, J.
1. The information of dacoity given by the petitioner to the police was, on investigation, found to be false: and the police forwarded a final report accordingly under section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code to the magistrate having jurisdiction, having, of course, sent a report earlier under section 157. The petitioner did not repeat his charge before the magistrate although he was duly served with notice under section 173 (1) (b). The magistrate did not lake cognizance of the alleged offence and the only order he made on the final report was to record approval of the action taken by the police. Now, the only proceedings in Court with regard to this mutter were these two reports by the police: and, in respect of neither can it be said that, in Court or in relation to any proceeding in Court, the petitioner instituted or caused to be instituted any criminal proceeding against any person or that he charged any person with having coin-milted an offence so as to attract section 195 (1) (b) of the Criminal Procedure Code in respect of his prosecution for an offence under section 211 of the Indian Penal Code. The commitment of the petitioner to Sessions for that offence is therefore, not liable to be questioned on the ground the only ground taken that the committing magistrate's cognizance was barred in the absence of a complaint by the magistrate to whom the reports under sections 157 and 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code were made. This is in accord with the view taken in Registrar. High Court v. Kodaugi, AIR 1932 Mad 363 (FB), in Public Prosecutor Madras v Salma Beevi, AIR 1941 Mad 579 and in Emperor v. Hayat Fateh Din AIR 1948 Lah 184 (FB) and, with the contrary view taken in J. D. Boywalla v. Sorab Rustomji, AIR 1941 Bom 294; Bajaji Appaji v. Emperor. AIR 1946 Bom 7 and State v. Vipra Khimji, AIR 1952 Sau 67. I express my respectful dissent.
It is no doubt anomalous that, although for a prosecution for an offence under Section 18-4 1. P. C. for giving false Information to a police officer a complaint by that officer or his superior is enjoined by section 195 (1) (a), Criminal Procedure Code, no complaint by the authority concerned is enjoined by the section -- at least not expressly--if the false information amounts to the graver offence of a false charge punishable under Section 211 I. P. C. unless it reaches the stage where it is committed in Court or in relation to any proceeding in Court. But that does not mean that a false charge of a cognizable offence made to the police must necessarily be viewed as made in the Court competent to take cognizance of the alleged offence or in relation to any proceeding in that Court, any more than it means that an offence under section 211 1. P. C. is not committed until a Court has actually taken cognizance of the false charge.
2. I dismiss this petition for quashing the commitment of the petitioner.