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

2022 Supreme(J&K) 374

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
JAVED IQBAL WANI, J.
Kuldeep Singh & Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
Pritam Lal & Ors. - Respondents
CRMC No. 625 of 2018, Crl. M. No. 745 of 2019 & IA No. 01 of 2018
Decided On : 17-05-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sunny Mahajan.

Cognizance of the offence under section 211 RPC could only be taken on the complaint made by the court which tried the offence in which the accused was acquitted.

Headnote:

Cr.P.C. - Quashment of Order - Section 211 RPC, Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners sought quashment of an order passed by the Magistrate in a complaint alleging commission of offence under section 211 RPC. The petitioners were acquitted of the said offences in a previous judgment.

Finding of the Court:

The Magistrate erred in entertaining the complaint, taking cognizance, and issuing process against the petitioners for the offence under section 211 RPC. The court found that cognizance of the offence could only be taken on the complaint made by the court which tried the offence in which the accused was acquitted.

Issues: The main issue was whether the Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the offence under section 211 RPC based on the complaint filed by the respondents.

Ratio Decidendi: Cognizance of the offence under section 211 RPC could only be taken on the complaint made by the court which tried the offence in which the accused was acquitted, not on the basis of the complaint of the respondents. The Magistrate committed a grave error in the process, which was not sustainable in law.

Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the complaint filed by the respondents against the petitioners before the Magistrate was quashed along with the impugned order.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioners herein through the medium of the instant petition filed under section 561-A Cr.P.C. (482 Cr.P.C.) are seeking quashment of order dated 4th June, 2018 (for short impugned order) passed by the court of Special Mobile Magistrate (Electricity), Batote (for short Magistrate) in a complaint titled as "Pritam Lal & Ors. v. Kuldeep Singh & Anr".

2. The facts projected in the instant petition would reveal that a criminal complaint came to be filed by the respondents herein against the petitioners for commission of offence under section 211 RPC alleging that the petitioners maliciously instituted criminal proceedings against them with the intention to cause injury to them and falsely charging them for having committed offence under section 452/323 RPC and that the petitioners vide Judgment dated 14th December, 2017, came to be acquitted of the said offences.

3. The Magistrate upon entertaining the complaint filed by the respondents herein is stated to have taken cognizance and issued process thereof against the petitioners herein for the commission of offences under section 211 RPC.

4. The impugned order is being challenged in the instant petition inter-alia on the ground that the court below did not appreciate the facts and law in its correct perspective while passing the impugned order and that the said order has been passed in breach of Section 195(b) of Cr.P.C. and that the Magistrate erred in not appreciating that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case by the respondents with an intention to cause injury to them and that in the face of the allegations made in the complaint, same does not disclose commission of alleged offence by the petitioners and that the impugned order passed by the Magistrate is mechanical in nature not sustainable in the eyes of law.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.

5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, cognizance of offence under section 211 RPC could not have been taken by the Magistrate in view of the provisions of Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C.

6. To better understand the aforesaid contentions of the counsel for the petitioners, it would be profit able to refer to Section 211 RPC read with Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. here under:-

Section 211 RPC and Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. reads as under:-

"Section 211. False charge of offence made with intent 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".

"Section 195. (1) No Court shall take cognizance-(b) Of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the same Code, namely, Sections 193, 194, 195, 196, 199, 200, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211 and 228 when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, [except on the complaint in writing of that Court or by such officer of the Court as that court may authorize in writing in this behalf, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate]".

As appears from above, offences under section 211 RPC fall under two categories, the first is a complaint to a Magistrate and the second is a report of a cognizance offence to a police officer. The essential ingredients of an offence under section 211 RPC is to institute or cause to be instituted any criminal proceedings against a person wi

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