SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(Cal) 787

High Court Of Calcutta
Before Pratap Kumar Ray, J.
RAKHI PANDEY - Appellant
Versus
KANKAR GHOSH - Respondent
C. R. R. 5 Of 2006
Decided On : 12/13/2006

Advocates Appeared:
HARADHAN BANERJI, K.VIJAY KUMAR, N.A.KHAN

A criminal prosecution for offenses related to false evidence and false declarations under Sections 193 and 200 of the IPC can only be launched by the concerned Court after conducting an inquiry under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. and being prima facie satisfied that a criminal prosecution should be launched.

Headnote:

JURISDICTION - COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 200 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 195 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SUMMARY

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged an order issued by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class-II, Port Blair, taking cognizance of offenses under Sections 182/191/193/200 of the Indian Penal Code based on a complaint filed under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the learned Court below had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offense as there was no complaint in writing filed by the private servant and/or by the concerned Court upon holding an inquiry and being prima facie satisfied that a criminal prosecution should be launched.

Issues: 1. Whether the Magistrate had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by the complainant with reference to the filing of an affidavit before the civil Court. 2. Whether the Court below had the jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offense as there was no complaint in writing filed by the private servant and/or by the concerned Court.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. provides a statutory embargo on taking cognizance of any offense unless a complaint in writing is filed by the public servant concerned or the Court concerned. 2. Section 195(a)(i) of the Cr.P.C. specifically mentions Section 182 of the IPC, and no individual litigant can launch a criminal prosecution for offenses under Section 182 of the IPC. 3. Section 195(b)(i) of the Cr.P.C. deals with offenses related to false evidence and false declarations, and only the concerned Court can file a complaint for such offenses. 4. Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. provides a procedural framework for the Court to conduct an inquiry to determine whether a prima facie case exists for launching a criminal prosecution for offenses mentioned in Section 195(b)(i) of the Cr.P.C. 5. Section 341 of the Cr.P.C. provides for an appellate mechanism against the Court's decision under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C.

Final Decision: The court allowed the application, set aside, and quashed the impugned order dated 5th September, 2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class-II, Port Blair, in C.R. No. 58/2005.

PRATAP KUMAR RAY, J.

( 1 ) THE Judgment of the Court was as follows : heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties.

( 2 ) THIS is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 assailing the order dated 5th September, 2005 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class-ll, Port Blair, District-Andaman in c. R. No. 58/2005 whereby and whereunder the learned Court below issued the process against the present petitioner herein for allegedly committing an offence punishable under Section 182/191/193/200 of Indian Penal Code on the basis of the petition of complaint as filed under Section 200 of the Code of criminal Procedure by the complainant therein alleging inter alia about filing of a false affidavit in a civil proceeding with reference to a Money Suit in connection with a partnership business which was being run by the present petitioner and the respondent-complainant herein under the name and style "kim Beauty Parlour". The only point has been urged before this Court about jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate below to entertain the complaint filed by the complainant with reference to an issue namely the filing of an affidavit before the civil Court. To address this question, the statutory provision should be looked into first. Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for brevity referred to as Cr. P. C. hereinafter, provides a statutory embargo of taking cognizance of any offence as detailed thereto until and unless a complaint in writing is filed by the public servant and/or the Court concerned as the case may be in terms of the alleged commission of offence under the Indian Penal code as mentioned thereto. To appreciate the issue Section 195 of Cr. P. C. is set out herein below in extenso : -

"195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence.-(1) No Court shall take cognizance - (a) (i) of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or (ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence, or (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned, or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate ; (b) (i) of any offence punishable under any of the following Sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely, Sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or (ii) of any offence described in Section 463, or punishable under section 471, Section 475 or Section 476, of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding, in any court, or (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (ii), except on the complaint in writing of that Court, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate. (2) Where a complaint has been made by a public servant under clause (a) of sub-section (1) any authority to which he is administratively subordinate may order the withdrawal of the complaint and send a copy of such order to the Court ; and, upon its receipt by the Court, no further proceedings shall be taken on the complaint : provided that no such withdrawal shall he ordered if the trial in the Court of first instance has been concluded. (3) In clause (b) of sub-section (1), the term "court" means a Civil, revenue or Criminal Court, and includes a tribunal constituted by or under a central, Provincial or Slate Act if declared by that Act to be a Court for the purposes of this section. (4) For the purposes of clause (b) of sub-section (I), a Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the C













Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top