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

2024 Supreme(Mad) 473

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
Yashvardha Shrivastav – Petitioner
Versus
The Inspector of Police, B4, High Court Police Station, Chennai – Respondent
W.P. No. 2772 of 2024
Decided On : 08-03-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Muthuchharan Sundresh.
For the Respondent: A. Damodaran.

IMPORTANT POINT
The closure of a complaint as false does not automatically warrant the filing of a private complaint under Section 182 of IPC without proper evidence to substantiate the false information, emphasizing the need for strict satisfaction of the ingredients of a criminal provision and the right/liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Headnote:

Mandamus - False Complaint - Section 182 of IPC - [Section 182 of IPC] - The court considered the petitioner's plea for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to file a complaint under Section 182 of IPC against the petitioner's wife for giving a false complaint. The court analyzed the ingredients of Section 182 of IPC and concluded that the mere closure of the complaint as false, without proper evidence, does not warrant the filing of a private complaint under Section 182 of IPC. The court also highlighted the need for strict satisfaction of the ingredients of a criminal provision, emphasizing the right/liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to file a complaint under Section 182 of IPC against the petitioner's wife for giving a false complaint, which resulted in an inquiry causing injury to the petitioner.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the closure of the complaint as false did not automatically warrant the filing of a private complaint under Section 182 of IPC, as there was no material to substantiate the false information provided by the complainant. The court also noted that the petitioner could seek damages for malicious prosecution before the competent court.

Issues: The main issue was whether the closure of the complaint as false would result in an offence under Section 182 of IPC, warranting the filing of a private complaint by the police against the complainant.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the ingredients of Section 182 of IPC must be strictly satisfied, and the mere closure of the complaint as false, without proper evidence, does not automatically warrant the filing of a private complaint under Section 182 of IPC. The court emphasized the need for material to substantiate the false information and the right/liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of, and no costs were awarded to the petitioner.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondent to exercise his powers under section 195 of Cr.P.C and file a complaint before the concerned Magistrate under Section 182 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 in light of the fact that Inquiry bearing No. B4 PS CSR No.35/2023 dated 12/03/2023 had been closed by the Respondent herein on the ground of 'false complaint'.)

1. This writ petition has been filed for issue of writ of mandamus directing the respondent to file a complaint before the concerned Magistrate Court under Section 182 of IPC on the ground that the wife of the petitioner had given a false complaint against the petitioner before the police and the complaint itself was closed as false and the complaint had resulted in causing injury to the petitioner.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent.

3. The case of the petitioner is that his wife had given a complaint on 12.03.2023 against the petitioner as if the petitioner had pushed her near the Family Court. Based on this complaint, the petitioner was summoned by the respondent police and he appeared before the respondent police continuously for a period of seven days starting from 05.05.2023 to 11.05.2023. Whatever questions were posed by the police was answered by the petitioner. Ultimately, the complaint itself was closed as a false complaint.

4. The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that the petitioner was made to undergo an enquiry based on false complaint and he has suffered an injury thereby, the petitioner wanted action to be taken against the complainant who is the wife of the petitioner. The petitioner cannot initiate any action, since there is a bar under Section 195 of Cr.P.C., and it is only the police who will have to file a private complaint against the wife of the petitioner for offence under Section 182 of IPC. The petitioner was making repeated representations in this regard and since, the same did not evoke any response, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court seeking for appropriate direction.

5. The respondent had filed a status report. The relevant portions in the status report are extracted hereunder:

2. It is submitted that based on the above complaint lodged by Tmt.Shefali Prasad, CSR.No.35/2023, dated: 12.03.2023 was assigned and enquiry was conducted by the then Sub Inspector of Police, Tr.Karthikeyan.

3. It is submitted that the police issued notice to the petitioner and his wife Tmt.Shefali Prasad to appear before the respondent police for enquiry.

4. It is further submitted that subsequently, on various dates, notice has been issued to both the petitioner and his wife Tmt.Shefali Prasad to appear before the respondent police for enquiry. Based on that, the petitioner's counsel appeared before the respondent police on 07.04.2023 due to the petitioner being affected by covid-19. He was undergoing treatment for the same and has submitted his medical documents to the respondent police. But the petitioner's wife Tmt.Shefali Prasad failed to appear before the respondent police for enquiry.

5. It is submitted that the petitioner filed anticipatory bail petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras vide Crl.O.P.No.7819/2023. When the matter came up for hearing on 13.04.2023, the Hon'ble High Court passed an order as follows:-

"5. Considering the facts and circumstances, the respondent police has to issue notice under section 41 (A) of Cr.P.C to the petitioner and the petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent police after three weeks from today, for a period of one week and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation and the investigation officer has to conduct the enquiry by strictly following the procedures therein and if any prima facie case is made out against the petitioner, register the FIR or close the petition enquiry with a pe

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