Back
2024 Supreme(SC) 1317
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.
Anil Kumar J. Bavishi – Appellant
VERSUS
Mahendra Kumar Jalan @ M.K. Jalan – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 5490 of 2024 [@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 6845 of 2024]
Decided On : 19-12-2024
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Vikash Singh, AOR Mr. S. Hariharan, Adv. Mr. K. M. Kalidharun, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Siddarth Luthra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Somopriyo Chowdhury, Adv. Ms. Pritha Basu, Adv. Mr. Ashish Choudhury, AOR Mr. Akash Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Debartha Chakraborty, Adv. Mr. Sougati, Adv. Mr. Anand Kamal, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Arora, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINT
False evidence and statement – Offence under Section 193/199/200 can theoretically be committed inside as well as outside a court – Section 195 read with Section 340 Cr.P.C. prescribes a definite route which has to be mandatorily followed if such an offence is alleged to have been committed before court.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 193/199/200 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 229/236/237] – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 195 read with Section 340 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 215 read with Section 379] – False evidence and statement – Prosecution – Offence under Section 193/199/200 can theoretically be committed inside as well as outside a court – Section 195 read with Section 340 Cr.P.C. prescribes a definite route which has to be mandatorily followed if such an offence is alleged to have been committed before court – But this would not mean that a person is without remedy when such an offence is committed outside court i.e. in any other forum, such as a Tribunal, which may not be a court – In present case, offences were allegedly committed before Municipal Building Tribunal which is not defined as a Court – It was not empowered to entertain such application as prescribed under law under Section 195 read with Section 340 Cr.P.C. – Only way such application can be entertained, for precise offences of Sections 193, 199 and 200 is through private complaint and only relating to offences before Tribunal – Tribunal rightly entertained such complaint – Impugned order passed by High Court set aside and complaint shall be entertained by concerned Tribunal and thereafter, orders shall be passed. (Paras 4, 5, 8 and 9)
Facts of the case:
Only question is whether complaint under Sections 193/199/200 IPC can be made only by orders of court, as contemplated under Section 195 read with Section 340 Cr.P.C. or it can also be entertained as a private complaint.
Findings of Court:
Complaint shall be entertained by concerned Tribunal and thereafter, orders shall be passed. Fate of the complaint would lie on its merits to be decided by Tribunal.
Result : Appeal allowed.
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. Presently, we have a case before us where the appellant has challenged the order of the High Court dated 05.02.2024 passed on an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., whereby the High Court has declined to grant relief to the appellant for the reason that what the appellant sought was that his private complaint, which has been made before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, for alleged offences committed at the hands of the respondent under Sections 193/199/200 IPC, be allowed. The High Court declined the relief for the reasons that such a complaint under Cr.P.C. can only be made on directions of the court concerned.
3. For a ready reference, the offences which the appellant allegedly committed are under Sections 193/199/200 of the Indian Penal Code, which read as under :
“Section 193. Punishment for false evidence - Whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any of a judicial proceeding, or fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; and whoever intentionally gives or fabricates false evidence in any other case, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 199. False statement made in declaration which is by law receivable as evidence - Whoever, in any declaration made or subscribed by him, which declaration any Court of Justice, or any public servant or other person, is bound or authorized by law to receive as evidence of any fact, makes any statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, touching any point material to the object for which the declaration is made or used, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave false evidence.
Section 200. Using as true such declaration knowing it to be false - Whoever corruptly uses or attempts to use as true any such declaration, knowing the same to be false in any material point, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave false evidence.”
4. Now, a bare perusal of the above Sections shows that the offences mentioned therein can be committed, either before a court or at any other place as well. Section 195 read with Section 340 Cr.P.C. prescribes a definite route which has to be mandatorily followed if such an offence is alleged to have been committed before a court. But this would not mean that a person is without remedy when such an offence is committed outside the court i.e. in any other forum, such as a Tribunal, which may not be a court, like in the present case.
5. The offences were allegedly committed before a Tribunal known as Municipal Building Tribunal. It is an admitted fact that this Tribunal is not defined as a Court.
6. The precise case of the appellant is that since the “act” or the offence is not before a court, the only remedy for him now is to file a Private Complaint. It is true that in his first round of litigation, he had moved an application that the court may take a cognizance of it and filed a complaint under Section 195 read with Section 340 Cr.P.C., which the Tribunal as well as the High Court had declined.
7. In the second round of litigation, the appellant filed a private complaint, on which the cognizance was taken but the respondent, who allegedly committed the offence, invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., wherein it was argued that for these offences a private complaint cannot be filed and the law prescribes a definite path to be followed here which is laid down in Section 195 read with Section 340 of Cr.P.C.
8. The High Court came to the conclusion that the offences alleged to have been committed were those offences, on which the complaint could have been filed only by the court or the orders of the court prescribed under Sectio
