Quashed

Mohammed Shakil Ahmad v. the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Jharkhand HC21 Nov 2023Cr.M.P./1391/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand quashed criminal proceedings for false complaint and giving false information (Sections 182, 211 IPC) initiated against the petitioner. The court found a non-application of judicial mind due to ambiguous language in the order and held the lower court erred in inviting Section 211 IPC which applies to complaints filed in court, not before police.

What did the court decide?

The entire criminal proceeding including the cognizance order dated 12.12.2011 is quashed and the petition is allowed.

Mohammed Shakil Ahmad Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI

¶3

----

¶4

Cr.M.P. No. 1391 of 2015

¶5

---- Mohammed Shakil Ahmad @ Md. Shakil .... Petitioner -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand and Another .... Opposite Parties

¶6

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶8

--For the Petitioner :- Mr. A.K.Sahani, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Suraj Mohan, A.P.P. ----

¶9

07 /21.11.2023 Heard Mr. Sahani, the learned counsel appearing on behalf

¶10

of the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State.

¶11

This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 22.12.2011 in G.O.No.171 of 2011, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella, in connection with Nimdih P.S. Case No.1 of 2011 dated 06.01.2011 (G.R. No.18 of 2011).

¶12

Mr. Sahani, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed a complaint case before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella which was registered as C/1 Case No.05 of 2009. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella referred the said complaint under the provisions of section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C to the police for registration of the F.I.R and pursuant to that the police has investigated the matter and submitted final form saying that the petitioner has not produced the witness and recommendation is made to proceed under section 182 and 211 of the I.P.C against the petitioner and pursuant to that the learned court has taken cognizance under sections 182 and 211 IPC. He submits that the petitioner has produced six witnesses and in spite of that, said comment was made by the police.

¶13

The learned counsel for the respondent State submits that the learned court has rightly taken cognizance.

¶14

It appears that the complaint case has been filed before the

¶15

¶16

learned court and the learned court has sent the matter to police under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C in which final form was submitted, however, recommendation on 27.10.2011 was made to proceed against the petitioner under section 182 and 211 IPC and pursuant thereto, the learned court has taken cognizance. Section 211 IPC is more serious offence than one punishable under section 182 I.P. Code, but to invoke section 211 IPC a false complaint is to be filed in court but under section 182 IPC there is no such requirement. A false complaint to the police or a public servant is sufficient so the offence under section 182 and 211 IPC are distinct offence and a person under section 182 IPC cannot be alternatively charged under section 211 IPC as it has been held in the case of State of Punjab v. Brij Lal Palta , reported in AIR 1969 SC 355 . Further the Court looking into the impugned order finds that ‘section’ and the word ‘cognizance’ have been filled up in blank space which further suggest that there is non-application of judicial mind.

¶17

Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the cognizance order dated 12.12.2011 in G.O.No.171 of 2011, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella, in connection with Nimdih P.S. Case No.1 of 2011 dated 06.01.2011 (G.R. No.18 of 2011) is quashed.

¶18

This petition is allowed and disposed of.

¶19

Pending petition if any also stands disposed of accordingly.

¶20

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶21

SI/

Mohammed Shakil Ahmad v. the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Shakil Ahmad v. the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahesh Minz And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Md.Zeeshan And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Yogender Singh And Ar Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Smt Pardeshi Toppo and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mithu Singh and Anr. Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Suresh Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.