Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. The learned S.D.J.M., Rajmahal issued notice to the petitioner. The notice was received by the petitioner but he did not turn up before the learned S.D.J.M., Rajmahal to challenge the final report or the complaint for having committed the offences punishable under Section 182 and 211 I.P.C.
6. Consequent upon that learned S.D.J.M., Rajmahal accepted the final form submitted by police and after going through the record as the learned S.D.J.M., Rajmahal found that the prima facie the offences punishable under Section 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code is made out hence, took cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner.
10. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that Section 195 (1) Cr.P.C. envisages that no court shall take cognizance inter alia of the offence punishable under Section 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code except the complaint in writing of the public servant concern. The question is as to who is the public servant concern for an offence punishable under Section 182 of Indian Penal Code. Section 182 of Indian Penal Code reads as under :-

12. Now in this case, the undisputed fact remains that the I.O. of the case is the public servant to whom false information has been given by the petitioner; knowing that the information given by him to be false. There is no dispute that the other ingredients so as to constitute the offence punishable under Section 182 of Indian Penal Code is present, hence this Court is not delving into the other ingredients of Section 182 of Indian Penal Code but the issue is confined only as to who is the public servant concerned, hence, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the I.O. of the case is the public servant concerned; hence, the petitioner in his statement recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has provided given false information to the I.O. of the case.

13. The fact of the case is entirely different from the fact of P.D. Lakhani & Anr. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (supra) because in that case the investigation was done by one Gian Singh, In-charge, Special Cell of CIA and a report was also made to Superintendent of Police (Detective). The Station Housing Officer of Adampur who was no way concerned with the receipt of the false information or the investigation of the case; filed the complaint for taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 182 of Indian Penal Code but unlike that case, in this case, the I.O. of the case without doubt is the person to whom false information has alleged to have been given by the petitioner.