Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.

Heard Sri Shiv Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Lal Chandra Misra, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 15.11.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lalitpur under Section 182 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District Lalitpur acquitting the accused persons in S.T. No. 76 of 2010 (State Vs. Suresh), Case Crime No. 5119 of 2009, under Sections 498-A, 307 IPC and D.P. Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Lalitpur. While passing the acquittal order, the learned Sessions Judge directed to issued notice against the informant Om Prakash Sahu/revisionist for registering a case under Section 182 IPC.

3. The revisionist has challenged the impugned order to be illegal and arbitrary. He lodged the FIR on the saying of the local persons. When real facts were brought to his knowledge by his daughter, he disclosed the real facts before the court. Section 182 IPC does not apply in the present case. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

4. From perusal of judgment, it appears that the revisionist was informant in the above sessions trial and when he appeared before the court for giving his statement, he turned hostile and he did not support the prosecution. In addition to him, the other three prosecution witnesses namely Smt. Jyoti-PW-2, Sri Devesh Sahu-PW-3 and Brij Gopal-PW-4 were also turned hostile and they did not support the prosecution version. The formal witnesses such as doctor and IO were not examined nor any other witness was examined who could say that PW-1 had given false statement or false information to police.

5. It appears that finding the statement of P.W.1 and other witnesses to be believable and relying on the same, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused persons. When on the basis of their statements particularly, the statement of informant/revisionist the accused persons were acquitted then at the same time saying that the informant/revisionist gave false information/statement does not appear to be a correct approach in such kind of matter. The correct way for having recourse to Section 182 is that some of the statement when given before the court, is found to be false and then giving finding that witness has given false statement/information, the case may be directed to be registered under section 182 IPC. In this case, this is not the situation and the witnesses have turned hostile from the very beginning. In fact, section182 IPC speaks of false information given to public servant to cause him to use his lawful power to the injury to another person.

6. A judicial notice may also be taken that case was based on dowry harassment and matrimonial cause and by experience it can be gathered that in such kind of cases at subsequent stage, the parties came to some amicable settlement and since the offence under section 498-A was not compoundable, the court has to complete trial and on the basis of compromising statement, decision of acquittal in favour of the accused persons is passed. It is pertinent to mention that there are a number of judicial pronouncements promoting and encouraging amicable settlement through mediation, or otherwise. In this case, the informant has been father of the victim Smt. Jyoti and it can also be noticed that Smt. Jyoti who had made allegation of demand of dowry has also turned hostile which indicates that the matter was amicably settled between parties. It is therefore observed that it is never mandatory for the trial court to initiate proceeding under section 182 IPC.

7. Considering all facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find that learned court below exercised its jurisdiction in a correct way and right spirit. Apparently, there is material irregularity and illegality and jurisdictional error in the impugned order. No fruitful purpose would be served by invoking Section 182 IPC in this case.

8. Hence the revision is allowed.