1. Petitioner filed a complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC, concealing a prior complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, leading to proceedings under Section 182 IPC and Section 340 CrPC. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 3
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.P.Wadhwa : S.Saghir Ahmad
Subhash Chandra
Versus
State Of U.P.
Case No. : 1958 of 1999
Date of Decision : 1/1/00
Proceedings under Section 182 IPC and Section 340 CrPC for filing a false complaint are premature unless the underlying complaint is first adjudicated on merits and found to be false and made with the intent to cause injury.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 182 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 156(3), 195 and 340 - Filing of complaint - Concealment of previous filing - Initiation of proceedings for false information - Mere non-mention of a complaint already filed in one court in a subsequent petition filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before another court is not sufficient to attract Section 182 IPC - All ingredients of Section 182 IPC must be established by evidence, including whether the complaint was false and made with the necessary intention or knowledge to induce the court to exercise its lawful power to cause injury to the accused (Para 6, 7).
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 340 - Stage of initiation - Directions to lodge a complaint under Section 340 Cr.P.C. read with Section 195 Cr.P.C. are premature if the underlying complaint has not yet been disposed of on merits and it has not been established that the information provided was false (Para 7).
Facts of the case:
A petitioner filed a complaint before a Magistrate regarding an incident of assault and theft. Subsequently, the petitioner moved an application under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code before a Special Judge for the same incident without disclosing the previous filing. Upon learning of the concealment, the Special Judge initiated proceedings under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court subsequently directed that a complaint be lodged against the petitioner in accordance with Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code read with Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Special Judge and the High Court acted hastily. The mere omission to mention a previous complaint does not automatically constitute an offence under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code. It is necessary to first determine if the complaint was false and filed with the requisite malicious intent.
Issues: Whether the non-disclosure of a prior complaint filed before a different court constitutes an offence under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code and whether proceedings under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code can be initiated before the merits of the original complaint are decided.
Ratio Decidendi: To sustain a charge under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code, it must be proven that the information given was false and intended to induce the court to cause injury to another. Such a finding cannot be reached until the underlying complaint is investigated and adjudicated on its merits. Therefore, initiating proceedings for false information at a premature stage, before the merits of the complaint are decided, is legally unsustainable (Para 7).
Result: Petition disposed of; orders of the Special Judge and the High Court are set aside.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether proceedings under Section 340 CrPC and Section 182 IPC are premature when the underlying complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC has not been disposed of on merits. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. Mere non-mention of a prior complaint is insufficient to initiate proceedings under Section 182 IPC without establishing all ingredients of the offence through evidence. (Para 6 , 7 )
4. Proceedings under Section 182 IPC require proof that the complaint was false and made with intent to induce the court to cause injury to another. (Para 7 )
5. Impugned orders set aside; Special Sessions Judge directed to dispose of the Section 156(3) CrPC complaint before considering proceedings under Section 182 IPC. (Para 8 )
6. When can a person be proceeded against under Section 182 IPC for filing a complaint?
A person can be proceeded against under Section 182 IPC only after all ingredients of the offence are established by evidence, specifically that the complaint was false and made with the intention or knowledge to induce the court to exercise its lawful power to cause injury to another. (Para 7 )
7. Does the mere concealment of a previously filed complaint justify immediate proceedings under Section 182 IPC?
No, the mere non-mention or concealment of a previously filed complaint in a subsequent application under Section 156(3) CrPC is not sufficient to initiate proceedings under Section 182 IPC without further evidence of falsity and intent. (Para 6 , 7 )
8. At what stage should a court initiate proceedings under Section 340 CrPC for a false complaint?
Such proceedings are premature until the court has investigated and found that the complaint was false and filed with the necessary intention or knowledge as required under Section 182 IPC. (Para 7 , 8 )
(1) THE dispute between petitioner and respondent Nos. 3 to 6 dates back to 10th of March 1998, when respondents 3-6 are alleged to have forcibly taken away 350 bags of potatoes valued at more than Rupees one lakh, from the fields of the petitioner by loading the consignment in their tractor-trolley. In order to prevent the petitioner from lodging the First Information Report with the Police, respondents 3-6 took the petitioner to their residence and allegedly assaulted him. On the next day, namely, on 1 1/03/1998, the petitioner informed the Sr. Superintendent of Police, Farrukhabad, about the above incident through a fax message.
(2) IN another incident, which is the incident involved in this case, respondent 3-6 assaulted the petitioner on 29/03/1998 at 11 A.M., Rs.500/-which the petitioner had with him at that time was taken-away by respondents 3-6 and they also badly abused the petitioner. The incident was allegedly witnessed by Ram Niwas and SiyaRam. Petitioner immediately went to the Police Station to lodge the report but no action was taken Consequently, the petitioner filed a complaint in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad, against respondents 3-6 on 2/04/1998 in respect of the incident of 29/03/1998. While the application was pending in the court, the petitioner was advised that in respect of the incident in question the court competent to take action was the court of Special Sessions Judge, (DAA), Farrukhabad, and not the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate. Consequently, on 24/06/1998, petitioner moved an application under Section 156 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code in the court of Special Sessions Judge (DAA), Farrukhabad. On the direction of the Special Sessions Judge (DAA), Farrukhabad, on 6/7/1998, a case was registered under Section 394/504/506 Indian Penal Code at Police Station, Farrukhabad, against respondents 3-6 as crime case No. 541/98. The order dated 6/7/1998, by which the learned Special Sessions Judge (DAA), Farrukhabad, had directed Police Station House Officer to register a case against respondents 3-6, was challenged by the latter in the Allahabad High Court through a petition (Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 2527 of 1998) under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code. On this petition, the High court passed the following order dated 23/7/1998:
"HEARD the applicants counsel that in respect of the same incident a criminal complaint has already been filed against the applicants and the same is pending. During the pendency of the same complaint, complainant Subhash Chandra also filed application U/S 156(3) Criminal Procedure Code. before another court, i.e the court of Special Judge (D.A.A), Farrukhabad, by concealing the fact that he has already moved an application before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad for necessary action by filing an application under Sec. 156(3) Criminal Procedure Code. and the C.J.M. refused to order investigation. It is further contended that the local police is inimical to the applicants. The applicants have filed writ petition against the police authorities as well as contempt petition. In short, the argument of the learned counsel is that the complainant by concealing material facts before the Special Judge (DAA), Farrukhabad has succeeded in procuring a favourable order on 6/7/1998. on his application moved under Sec. 156(3) Criminal Procedure Code. In the circumstances, this petition is disposed of finally with the observation that the applicants, if so advised, may move before the Special Judge (DAA) Farrukhabad inviting his attention to the aforestated objection and if such an objection is filed, the same shall be decided by Special Judge (DAA) Farrukhabad in accordance with law after getting opportunity of hearing to both the sides. The operation of the order dated 6/7/1998 passed by Special Judge (DAA) Farrukhabad shall remain stayed for a period of 10 days in order to enable the applicants to file suitable obj
