Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Developing his arguments further on the point that the order directing issuance of process was mechanical, Sri Sengupta takes this Court to the provisions of Section 203 IPC. Section 203 IPC reads as follows:-

"203. Giving false information respecting an offence committed. - Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, given any information respecting that offence which he knows or believes to be false, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Explanation. - In sections 201 and 202 and in this section the word "offence' includes any act committed at any place out of India, which, if committed in India, would be punishable under any of the following sections, namely, 302, 304, 382, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 402, 435, 436, 449, 450, 457, 458, 459 and 460."

On a reading of the Section (supra) Sri Sengupta argues that outraging the modesty of a woman which falls under Section 354 IPC does not come under the purview of Section 203 IPC (supra). The classes of offences which can be proceeded with under Section 203 IPC have been clearly elucidated in the Explanation and such classes do not include Section 354 IPC. Ld. Counsel therefore argues that the pending proceedings being C-8509/2013 along with the order dated 30th November, 2013 deserve to be set aside.

To the further mind of this Court the Explanation to Section 203 IPC covers the category of offences which, if committed at any place out of the country would be punishable by treating such offence to have been committed inside the country. Therefore, the categories of offences in the Explanation to Section 203 IPC by the use of the words "offence includes" creates an exclusive category of offences which will be punishable under Sections 201, 202 and 203 IPC by treating them to be punishable in India although they may have been committed at any place outside India.

Therefore, the only conclusion this Court can draw is that the Explanation has created a separate class of offences committed outside the country without impinging on the defining Section, being Section 40 IPC read with the parent Section 203 IPC. Therefore to exclude Section 354 IPC from the ambit of Section 203 IPC once the act is allegedly committed inside the country would be putting a premium to the Explanation overriding the intention of the controlling section.

This Court, for the reasons already discussed above, cannot also lose sight of the fact that the bitter personal relationship between the parties has time and again forced several courts to examine the crux of the dispute and sift the chaff from the grain. This Court is of the considered view that in order to do so both the Ld. Trial Court and the Revisionist Court can apply any tool legally under their command to arrive at a just finding. Such tools cannot exclude calling for a police report to assist the Court in its enquiry.