Back
1975 Supreme(J&K) 3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
D.D. Thakur, J.
Bansi Lal - Appellant
Versus
Dharam Chand - Respondent
Cr. Reference No. 20/1974
Decided On : 10 January, 1975
Advocate For Appellant: Babu Ram Sharma
Advocate For Respondent: R.P. Sethi
THE FALSITY OF THE COMPLAINT MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY AN ULTERIOR MOTIVE OF HARASSING OR INCONVENIENCING THE ACCUSED.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 - SECTION 250(2) - COMPENSATION FOR FALSE AND VEXATIOUS COMPLAINT - SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY - COURT HELD THAT THE FALSITY OF THE COMPLAINT MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY AN ULTERIOR MOTIVE OF HARASSING OR INCONVENIENCING THE ACCUSED.
Fact of the Case:
THE COMPLAINANT LODGED A REPORT WITH THE POLICE THAT HIS WOODEN DOOR FRAME HAD BEEN STOLEN AND THAT THE ACCUSED WAS SEEN ROAMING ABOUT IN SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES NEAR HIS HOUSE. THE POLICE REGISTERED A CASE AND AFTER INVESTIGATION, FILED A CHARGE SHEET AGAINST THE ACCUSED. THE MAGISTRATE FOUND THAT THE ACCUSED HAD FITTED A WOODEN DOOR FRAME IN HIS WALL BUT THAT IT HAD BEEN BROUGHT FROM PAKISTAN, WHICH WAS THEN IN THE OCCUPATION OF THE INDIAN ARMED FORCES. THE MAGISTRATE ALSO FOUND THAT THE REPORT WAS FALSE AND VEXATIOUS AND ORDERED THE COMPLAINANT TO PAY COMPENSATION TO THE ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 250(2) OF THE CR. P.C.
Finding of the Court:
THE COURT HELD THAT THE MAGISTRATE ERRED IN ORDERING THE COMPLAINANT TO PAY COMPENSATION UNDER SECTION 250(2) OF THE CR. P.C. THE COURT HELD THAT THE FALSITY OF THE COMPLAINT MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY AN ULTERIOR MOTIVE OF HARASSING OR INCONVENIENCING THE ACCUSED. THE COURT FURTHER HELD THAT AN HONEST AND BONA FIDE PROSECUTION, HOWEVER INFIRM AND INSUFFICIENT ITS BASIS MAY BE, DOES NOT CALL FOR AN ACTION UNDER SECTION 250(2) OF THE CR. P.C.
Issues: WHETHER THE MAGISTRATE ERRED IN ORDERING THE COMPLAINANT TO PAY COMPENSATION UNDER SECTION 250(2) OF THE CR. P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: THE COURT HELD THAT THE MAGISTRATE ERRED IN ORDERING THE COMPLAINANT TO PAY COMPENSATION UNDER SECTION 250(2) OF THE CR. P.C. THE COURT HELD THAT THE FALSITY OF THE COMPLAINT MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY AN ULTERIOR MOTIVE OF HARASSING OR INCONVENIENCING THE ACCUSED. THE COURT FURTHER HELD THAT AN HONEST AND BONA FIDE PROSECUTION, HOWEVER INFIRM AND INSUFFICIENT ITS BASIS MAY BE, DOES NOT CALL FOR AN ACTION UNDER SECTION 250(2) OF THE CR. P.C.
Final Decision: THE COURT SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE MAGISTRATE DIRECTING THE COMPLAINANT TO PAY COMPENSATION TO THE ACCUSED.
2. The complainant Bansi Lal, lodged a report in the Police Station, Hiranagar, that some person had stolen away his wooden door frame worth Rs. 75/-. It was further stated in the F.I.R. that accused. Dharam Chand, was seen roaming about in suspicious circumstances near his house. Another fact stated in the F.I.R. was that one Chandu carpenter had told the complainant that Dharam Chand accused had got one door frame fitted in his wall by him. On this report the Police registered a case under Section 457/380 R.P.C. and after completing the investigation presented a charge sheet against the accused in the court of Munsiff Judicial Magistrate, Hiranagar. On the conclusion of the trial the Judicial Magistrate found that no doubt the accused had got a door fitted in his wall but the same had been brought by the accused from that part of Pakistan which was at that time in the occupation of the Indian Armed Forces. He further found that the report was false and vexatious and that the complainant had managed to implicate the accused with the help of the Police machinery. While recording a finding of falsity of the complaint the Magistrate called upon the complainant who was present in the court to show cause why he may not be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 40/- as compensation to the accused under Section 250 of the Cr. P.C. The complainant in reply submitted that the F.I.R. was true but the prosecution witnesses had conspired with the accused and made statements against the prosecution. This explanation of the complainant did not appeal to the Magistrate with the result that he ultimately ordered the complainant to pay a sum of Rs. 20/- as compensation to the accused and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one week,
3. Against this order of the learned Magistrate the complainant brought a revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Kathua, who, as stated earlier, has recommended that the order be set aside as the same is bad in law, the provisions of Section 250 of the Cr. P.C. not having been strictly complied with.
4. After hearing the counsel for the parties in this reference I reserved judgment as I found that there was some conflict between various High Courts in regard to the true scope of Section 250 of the Cr. P.C. At the time of dictating the judgment I examined the whole evidence recorded by the Magistrate although it was not necessary for me to do so. After perusing the evidence in this case I am of the opinion that regardless cf the question as to whether the procedure provided by Section 250 of the Cr. P.C. was or was not complied with, it was not a case where the Magistrate should have taken action under Section 250 of the Cr. P.C. From the tenor of the judgment it appears that the Magistrate has not tried to appreciate the evidence dispassionately. It is true that some of the prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution case but that by itself does not suggest that the prosecution story was false, vexatious or frivolous. There is a lot of difference between the failure of the prosecution to prove a case and a finding that a report or complaint is false. The falsity or vexatiousness of a case have something to do with the state of the mind of the complainant. The motivating force for a false or a vexatious complaint must emerge from a malacious or a malafide mind. The prosecution on the basis of insufficient evidence resulting in the discharge or the acquittal of the accused does not necessarily point to the malicious or vexatious mind of the complainant."
5. The falsity of
