MD Ikrail Alias MD Ikrail Ansari Ali Vs the State of Jharkhand

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 257 of 2021

Md. Ikrail @ Md. Ikrail Ansari (Ali), aged about 42 years, son of Md. Safed Ali, resident of Rajwara, P.O. & P.S.-Rajmahal, Dist.-Sahebganj, Jharkhand

¶3

.... Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

…. Opp. Party

¶7

P R E S E N T

¶8

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶9

For the Petitioner : Mr. Raja Ram Shekhar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. P.D. Agrawal, Spl. P.P.

¶10

By the Court:-

¶11

Heard the parties.

¶12

This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the order dated 29.07.2017 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Rajmahal in connection with Rajmahal P.S. Case No. 148 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. No. 531 of 2016.

¶13

The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner lodged Rajmahal P.S. Case No. 148 of 2016 against the named accused persons of that case alleging commission of the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 379, 447 and 504 of Indian Penal Code.

¶14

After investigation of the case, police found the allegation against the accused persons to be not true and found that the petitioner has

¶15

Cr.M.P. No.257 of 2021

¶16

1

¶17

committed the offence punishable under Section 182 and 211 of Indian Penal Code.

¶18

The learned S.D.J.M., Rajmahal issued notice to the petitioner. The notice was received by the petitioner but he did not turn up before the learned S.D.J.M., Rajmahal to challenge the final report or the complaint for having committed the offences punishable under Section 182 and 211 I.P.C.

¶19

Consequent upon that learned S.D.J.M., Rajmahal accepted the final form submitted by police and after going through the record as the learned S.D.J.M., Rajmahal found that the prima facie the offences punishable under Section 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code is made out hence, took cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner.

¶20

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the FIR was handed over to the officer-in-charge of Rajmahal police station and it is averred in paragraph no.6 of the criminal miscellaneous petition that the case was transferred to the Nandkishor Singh, Assistant Sub-Inspector, Rajmahal who submitted final form being the I.O. of the case. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the I.O. of the case Nandkishor Singh is subordinate to Officer-in-Charge of Rajmahal Police station hence, the court ought not have taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code on a complaint lodged by an inferior officer being Nandkishor Singh, Assistant Sub-Inspector, Rajmahal being the I.O. of the case when the FIR was addressed to the Officer-in-Charge of police station-who was a superior officer to

¶21

Cr.M.P. No.257 of 2021

¶22

2

¶23

that of Nandkishor Singh, Assistant Sub-Inspector. So far as the offence punishable under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, it is submitted that the same is bad in law.

¶24

Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of P.D. Lakhani & Anr. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in (2008) 5 SCC 150 , wherein in the facts of that case, the accused persons of that case approached the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jallandhar with a written complaint and Senior Superintendent of Police directed the subordinate officer to enquire and report and the subordinate officer reported to the Senior Superintendent of Police that application submitted by the accused of that case making allegation are found to be false after investigation and the S.H.O. of the police station who was not involved in the investigation of the case was directed to take action against the accused persons of that case for having committed the offence punishable under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India relying upon its judgment in the case of Daulat Ram vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1982 SC 1206 and State of U.P. vs. Mata Bhikh & Ors. reported in (1994) 4 SCC 95 held that since the complaint lodged by delegation of power without any sanction of law, the same is in the teeth of section 195 of Code of Criminal Procedure and set aside the judgment of the High Court with observation that another complaint would be maintainable at the instance of the appropriate authority. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.

¶25

Cr.M.P. No.257 of 2021

¶26

3

¶27

Learned Special Public Prosecutor on the other hand opposes the prayer made by the petitioner and submits that the fact of P.D. Lakhani & Anr. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (supra) and this case are entirely different. Unlike the case of P.D. Lakhani & Anr. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (supra), the I.O. of the case was entrusted with the investigation of the case is undisputedly a public servant and he himself conducted the investigation including the recording of the statement of informant of that case under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and in such statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the informant gave the information which he knew and believe to be false intending thereby to cause and knowing it to be likely to cause that he will thereby cause to the I.O. of the case, to do something which the I.O. ought not to do, that is of falsely implicating the accused persons of the case and submitted charge sheet against them. Hence, in the facts of this case, the I.O. of the case is a “public servant concern” as mentioned in Section 195 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. It is further submitted by learned Spl. P.P. that the petitioner has wrongly mentioned in paragraph no.6 of this criminal miscellaneous petition that the case was transferred to Nandkishor Singh, Assistant Sub-Inspector but the fact remains that the case was not transferred to anybody and only the investigation of the case was entrusted to Nandkishor Singh. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed.

¶28

Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that Section 195 (1) Cr.P.C. envisages that no court shall take

¶29

Cr.M.P. No.257 of 2021

¶30

4

¶31

cognizance inter alia of the offence punishable under Section 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code except the complaint in writing of the public servant concern. The question is as to who is the public servant concern for an offence punishable under Section 182 of Indian Penal Code. Section 182 of Indian Penal Code reads as under :-

¶32

“ 182. False information, with intent to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person .—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—

¶33

(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

¶34

(b) to use the lawful power of such public servant to the injury or annoyance of any person,

¶35

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.”

¶36

It is crystal clear from the plain of section 182 of the Indian Penal Code; that a public servant to whom any information is given by someone who knows and believes the information given, to be false, is the public servant concerned.

¶37

Now in this case, the undisputed fact remains that the I.O. of the case is the public servant to whom false information has been given by the petitioner; knowing that the information given by him to be false. There is no dispute that the other ingredients so as to constitute the offence punishable under Section 182 of Indian Penal Code is present, hence this Court is not delving into the other ingredients of

¶38

Cr.M.P. No.257 of 2021

¶39

5

¶40

Section 182 of Indian Penal Code but the issue is confined only as to who is the public servant concerned, hence, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the I.O. of the case is the public servant concerned; hence, the petitioner in his statement recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has provided given false information to the I.O. of the case.

¶41

The fact of the case is entirely different from the fact of P.D. Lakhani & Anr. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (supra) because in that case the investigation was done by one Gian Singh, In-charge, Special Cell of CIA and a report was also made to Superintendent of Police (Detective). The Station Housing Officer of Adampur who was no way concerned with the receipt of the false information or the investigation of the case; filed the complaint for taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 182 of Indian Penal Code but unlike that case, in this case, the I.O. of the case without doubt is the person to whom false information has alleged to have been given by the petitioner.

¶42

Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the ratio of P.D. Lakhani & Anr. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (supra) is not applicable to the facts of this case and the contention of the petitioner that the cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 211 of Indian Penal Code is bad in law is a bald one without any specific reason , having been assigned therefor hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 211 of Indian Penal Code as well.

¶43

Cr.M.P. No.257 of 2021

¶44

6

¶45