Back
1982 Supreme(Ori) 138
ORISSA HIGH COURT
B. K. BEHERA, J.
M. S. JAGGI
VERSUS
REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AND ANOTHER
Criminal Revn. No.157 of 1982,
Decided on : 18 -10 -1982.
A false statement made in an affidavit, which is touching a point material to the object for which the declaration is made, and which is made knowing or believing it to be false, constitutes an offence punishable under Section 199 of the IPC.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - SECTION 199 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE - FALSE STATEMENT IN A DECLARATION - ESSENTIALS - INTERPRETATION - EXERCISE OF INHERENT JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - PRINCIPLES GOVERNING.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, who had been appearing in person in a criminal revision, filed an affidavit alleging that the learned Judge hearing the revision, the Chief Justice, and an Advocate appearing for the opposite party were class-mates. The learned Judge observed that the statement was not correct and directed that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice. The Registrar of the High Court, after an inquiry, submitted his report stating that the petitioner had failed to prove his allegation. The Chief Justice then passed an order for placing the matter before another Judge. The petitioner filed another affidavit expressing his regret for having asserted that the Chief Justice and the Judge hearing the revision were class-mates, but he did not deny his assertion that the Judge and the Advocate were class-mates. The Judge hearing the revision passed an order directing the Registrar to lodge a complaint against the petitioner under Section 199 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for making a false statement in an affidavit. The petitioner filed an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate to quash the order taking cognisance of the offence against him, which was rejected. The petitioner then filed a revision petition in the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), seeking to quash the criminal proceeding against him.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the petitioner had made a false statement in an affidavit, which was touching a point material to the object for which the declaration was made, namely, to have the matter transferred to the court of another Judge. The Court further held that the petitioner had deliberately made the false statement and stuck to it, and that the object of the petitioner in making the false statement was to have the matter transferred to the court of any other Judge of the High Court although legally this could not be a valid ground for transfer. The Court also held that there were prima facie materials to show that the petitioner had committed an offence punishable under Section 199 of the IPC, and that it was not a fit case in which the Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC and quash the criminal proceeding against the petitioner.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner's statement in the affidavit constituted an offence punishable under Section 199 of the IPC. 2. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the criminal proceeding against the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the petitioner's statement in the affidavit constituted an offence punishable under Section 199 of the IPC because: (a) it was a false statement made in a declaration which a court of justice was bound to receive as evidence; (b) the petitioner either knew or believed the statement to be false; and (c) the false statement was touching a point material to the object for which the declaration was made. 2. The Court held that it should not exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the criminal proceeding against the petitioner because: (a) there were prima facie materials to show that the petitioner had committed an offence punishable under Section 199 of the IPC; (b) the petition of complaint could legally be made against the petitioner; and (c) it was not a fit case in which the Court should interfere with the criminal proceeding.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the petitioner's revision petition and upheld the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate taking cognisance of the offence against the petitioner.
JUDGEMENT
1. The petitioner invokes the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Sec.482 of the Criminal P.C. (the Code for short) to quash the criminal proceeding (2 (c) C.C. No.23 of 1982) instituted against him under Sec.199 of the I.P.C. on a complaint made by the Registrar of this High Court.
2. In Cri. Revn. No.432 of 1979 of this Court in which Subash Chandra Mohapatra was the petitioner and the present petitioner was the opposite party, Mr. B.B. Mohanty, Advocate, had filed vakalatnama and appeared on behalf of the petitioner in that Criminal Revision. The present petitioner, who had been appearing in person, filed an affidavit in the court of Mr. Justice J.K. Mohanty, after the hearing was concluded, alleging relationship of the learned Judge with the petitioner in that revision. The learned Judge observed that the statement was not correct and directed that the matter should be placed before the learned Chief Justice for appropriate action. Under the direction of the learned Chief Justice, the Registrar of this Court, after an inquiry, submitted his report stating that the present petitioner had failed to prove his allegation. Thereafter the learned Chief Justice passed an order for placing the matter before Dr. Justice B.N. Misra. Hearing of the Criminal Revision was taken up and concluded in the court of Dr. Justice B.N. Misra on 16-11-1981 on which day, the present petitioner filed an affidavit stating that the learned Chief Justice, Mr. Justice J.K. Mohanty and Mr. B.B. Mohanty, Advocate for the petitioner in that revision, were the class-mates of Dr. Justice B.N. Misra and therefore, the matter might not be heard in that court. The matter was posted to 17-11-1981 for hearing on this affidavit. On that day, the present petitioner filed another affidavit expressing his regret for having asserted that the learned Chief Justice and Dr. Justice B.N. Misra were class-mates, but he did not denv his assertion that Dr. Justice B.N. Misra and Mr. B.B. Mohanty, Advocates, were class-mates.
3. On 17-11-1981, Dr. Justice B.N. Misra passed the following order :-
"Two affidavits have been filed by the opposite party Mr. M.S. Jaggi today in Court. In one affidavit he tenders his unconditional apology for his false statement in his affidavit dt. 16-11-1981 to the effect that Hon'ble Chief Justice Shri R.N. Misra and myself were class-mates. He sincerely regrets for the false statement made by him. His apology is accepted in so far as it relates to the above false statement.
xx xx xx xx xx xx
Hearing on the affidavit dt. 16-11-1981 is concluded. Judgment is reserved."
The learned Judge passed the following order on 15-12-1981 :-
"Judgment delivered as per separate sheets. The impugned order dated 23-4-1979 is quashed and the revision is disposed of accordingly.
XX XX XX XX XX XX
The hearing of this revision on merits commenced on 23-10-1981, continued on 28-10-1981 and concluded on 16-11-1981. On 16-11-1981 the opposite party filed an affidavit stating therein that the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, the Hon'ble Justice Shri J.K. Mohanty and Shri B.B. Mohanty. Advocate for the petitioner, were my class-mates, I pointed out to the opposite party that the Hon'ble the Chief Justice and Shri B.B. Mohanty, Advocate were never my class-mates. To my query Shri H.B. Mohanty, Advocate confirmed that he was never my class-mate. The matter was posted to 17-11-1981 for hearing on the affidavit dt. 16-11-1981 filed by the opposite party. On 17-11-1981 the opposite party filed another affidavit expressing his sincere regrets and tendered his apologies for his false assertion that the Hon'ble the Chief Justice and myself were class-mates. His apologies were accepted.
As already noted, when the hearing of the revision application was almost over, with a view to prevent the hearing of the matter before me and to shift the case to some other Court, a false statement of fact was made by the op
