Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12. In view of the above, this Court will test the complaint given by the Respondent to satisfy itself as to whether an offence under Section 211, I.P.C. has been made out against the Petitioner. This is the only limited scope that is involved in the present petition.

13. For proper appreciation, Section 211, I.P.C. is extracted hereinunder:

211. False charge of offence made with intent https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ to injure.—Whoever, with intent to cause injury to any person, institutes or causes to be instituted any criminal proceeding against that person, or falsely charges any person with having committed an offence, knowing that there is no just or lawful ground for such proceeding or charge against that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; and if such criminal proceeding be instituted on a false charge of an offence punishable with death, [imprisonment for life], or imprisonment for seven years or upwards, shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

“10. […] This section as its marginal note indicates renders punishable false charge of offence with intent to injure. The essential ingredient of an offence under Section 211 IPC is to institute or cause to be instituted any criminal proceeding against a person with intent to cause him injury or with similar intent to falsely charge any person with having committed an offence, knowing that there is no just or lawful ground for such proceeding or charge. Instituting or causing to institute false criminal proceedings assume false charge but false charge may be preferred even when no criminal proceedings result. It is frankly conceded by Shri Kohli that the appellant cannot be said to have instituted any criminal proceeding against any person. So that part of Section 211 IPC is eliminated. Now, the expression “falsely charges” in this section, in our opinion, cannot mean giving false evidence as a prosecution witness against an accused person during the course of a criminal trial. To “falsely charge” must refer to the original or initial accusation putting or seeking to put in motion the machinery of criminal investigation https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ and not when speaking to prove the false charge by making deposition in support of the charge framed in that trial. The words “falsely charges” have to be read along with the expression “institution of criminal proceeding”. Both these expressions, being susceptible of analogous meaning should be understood to have been used in their cognate sense. They get as it were their colour and content from each other. They seem to have been used in a technical sense as commonly understood in our criminal law. The false charge must, therefore, be made initially to a person in authority or to someone who is in a position to get the offender punished by appropriate proceedings. In other words, it must be embodied either in a complaint or in a report of a cognizable offence to the police officer or an officer having authority over the person against whom the allegations are made. The statement in order to constitute the “charge” should be made with the intention and object of setting criminal law in motion. […]”.

20.This Court had an occasion to consider the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Perumal v. Janaki (cited supra) in the judgement in S. MukanchandBothra v. Rajiv Gandhi Memorial Educational Charitable Trust &Ors (cited supra). The relevant paragraph is extracted hereinunder:

“7. It is our duty to point out that the alleged offence of the Sub-Inspector informing in the charge sheet the pregnancy of the girl concerned despite her medical certificate informing otherwise, would not and cannot fall within the definition of Section 211 IPC. It also is to be seen that Perumal had faced prosecution pursuant to a Magistrate taking cognizance. Fortunately, offence of making a false charge does not stand attracted as otherwise, it would be unfair to prosecute the Sub-Inspector who filed the charge sheet, while not doing so, the Judicial Magistrate who took cognizance thereon. As explained by the Supreme Court in Santokh Singh v. Izhar Hussain [(1973) 2 SCC 406], ‘the essential ingredient of an offence under section 211 IPC is to institute or cause, to be instituted any criminal proceeding against a person with intent to cause him injury or with similar intent to falsely charge any person with having committed an https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ offence, knowing that there is no just or lawful ground for such proceeding or charge. Instituting or causing to institute false criminal proceedings assume false charge but false charge may be preferred even when no criminal proceedings result. Now, the expression “falsely charges” in this section, in our opinion, cannot mean giving false evidence as a prosecution witness against an accused person during the course of a criminal trial. “To falsely charge” must refer to the original or initial accusation putting or seeking to put in motion the machinery of criminal investigation and not when seeking to prove the false charge by making deposition in support of the charge framed in that trial. The words “falsely charges” have to be, read along with the expression “institution of criminal proceeding”. Both these expressions, being susceptible of analogous meaning should be understood to have been. used in their cognate sense. They get as it were their colour and content from each other. They seem to have been used in a technical sense as commonly understood in our criminal law. The false charge must, therefore, be made initially to a person in authority or to someone who is in a position to get the offender punished by appropriate proceedings. In other words, it must be’ embodied either in a complaint or in a report of a cognizable offence to the police officer or to an officer having authority over the person against https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ whom the allegations are made. The statement in order to constitute the “charges” should be made with the intention and object of setting criminal law in motion.”

23. In the present case, the main grievance of the Respondent seems to be that he was unnecessarily made to undergo the agony of a malicious prosecution. Since this prosecution was investigated by the Petitioner, the Respondent wants to rope in the Petitioner as if the said officer prosecuted a false charge. If investigating officers are going to be exposed to such proceedings in all cases where the accused persons are acquitted from all charges, it will directly interfere with the independence of the authority in conducting an investigation. This is the reason why the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Santokh Singh’s Case (cited supra) held that the words “false charges” must be read along with the expression “institution of criminal proceedings”, which relates back to the initiation of criminal proceedings and it can never be related to an alleged false charge framed after the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ filing of the final report.