HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 398/2022

Harpal Singh S/o Shri Satnam Singh, Aged About 62 Years,

Director M/s. Satnam Motocorp Pvt. Ltd. R/o 47, Bajaj Nagar

Enclave, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Commissioner Of

Police, Police Commissionerate, Jaipur.

2.

The Deputy Commissioner Of Police (DCP) (East),

Gopalpura Mod, Jaipur.

3.

The Station House Officer, Police Station Malviya Nagar,

Jaipur (Rajasthan)

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Suresh Kumar Sahni

Mr. Ram Mohan Sharma

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Chandragupt Chopra, Dy. GA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR

Order

22/07/2022

The petitioner has sought for issuance of mandamus against

respondents No.1 to 3 specially the respondent No.3-SHO Police

Station, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) to file a criminal complaint

under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code against the informant

of FIR No.190/2021. The informant Kinshuk Sharma is not party

herein.

The prayer is on the ground that while quashing the FIR

No.190/2021 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1658/2022, Harpal

Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., this Bench had recorded that

the FIR suffers from vengeance as civil dispute between the

(2 of 4)

[CRLW-398/2022]

parties was already there before the Competent Civil Court and

the complainant by filing FIR had resorted to the criminal

proceedings, which was unwarranted.

In the criminal misc. aforesaid, neither issue involved nor it

was raised that the informant of the case requires to be

prosecuted under Section 182 IPC. Moreover, this Court had not

directed filing of any complaint under Section 182 IPC against the

informant. However, the petitioner filed the representation to the

SHO, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur through his Advocate Mr. Hemraj

Jangid directing, therein, to file a criminal complaint under Section

182 IPC against the informant of the case. Since the Police did not

take any action, the present petition has been filed.

Section 182 IPC reads as follows:-

“182. Whoever gives to any public servant any

information which he knows or believes to be

false, intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to

be likely that he will thereby cause, such public

servant

(a)to do or omit anything which such public

servant ought not to do or omit if the true state of

facts respecting which such information is given

were known by him, or

(b)to use the lawful power of such public servant

to the injury or annoyance of any person, shall be

punished with imprisonment of either description

for a term which may extend to six months, or

with fine which may extend to one thousand

rupees, or with both.”

Section 195 Cr.P.C. relates to prosecution for contempt of

lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public

justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence.

(3 of 4)

[CRLW-398/2022]

The relative portion is being reproduced below:-

“195 (1)No Court shall take cognizance-

(a)(i) of any offence punishable under

sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the

Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860 ), or

(ii)of any abetment of, or attempt to

commit, such offence, or

(iii)of any criminal conspiracy to commit

such offence, except on the complaint in

writing of the public servant concerned or

of some other public servant to whom he

is administratively subordinate;”

Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that in the

State of Rajasthan by State amendments in the aforesaid

provisions of Section 195, the word “administratively subordinate”

has been deleted and now any public servant can file a complaint.

The idea behind permissibility of a complaint, only by the

authorities mentioned in the said provision is that the authority

must be satisfied that the offences mentioned in the Section have

been committed before prosecuting any one criminally. Such

sa