The single judge allowed the petition to quash the investigation under Section 193 IPC for giving false evidence in a pending civil proceeding, ruling that the procedural bar under Section 195 CrPC had not been adhered to, despite the pending civil suit.
The investigation under Section 193 IPC was quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/14TH JYAISHTA, 1936
Crl.MC.No. 3086 of 2012 (A)
[CRIME NO. 333/2012 OF THADIYITTAPARAMBA POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM (RURAL) DISTRICT]
PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:
PURUSHOTHAMAN PILLAI, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O. PERUMAL PILLAI, KALAMVEETTIL HOUSE, THEKKURISSI VILLAGE, THEKKURISSI P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.C.T.JESTIN.
RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THADIYATTAPARAMBA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM (RURAL) THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2. SATHYASEELAN,
R1 BY SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. VIJU THOMAS. R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.THOMAS GEEVARGHESE.
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Prv.
CRL.M.C. NO.3086/2012-A:
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE 1: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE F.I.R. NO.333/12 OF THADIYATTAPARAMBA POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE 2: TRUE COPY OF THE SALE AGREEMENT DTD. 06/09/2010 BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE 3: TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO.136/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE MUNSIFF'S COURT, PERUMBAVOOR.
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE.
Prv.
P.D. RAJAN, J.
Crl.M.C. No.3086 of 2012
Dated this the 4th day of June, 2014
ORDER
This petition is filed u/s.482 of Cr.P.C. to quash Annexure-1 FIR in Crime No.333/2012 of Thadiyattapramba Police Station, which was registered u/s.420, 465, 468, 471,120B, and 193 r/w.34 IPC. The petitioner is the 2nd accused in the above case. Annexure-1 was filed before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, perumbavoor, which was forwarded to Perumbavoor Police for investigation. Since the place of occurrence was within the jurisdiction of Thadiyattaparamba Police Station, the case was subsequently made over to that police station. The petitioner contended that prima facie case is not made out in Annexure-1. If it is proceeded, it is a mere abuse of the process of the Court. Hence, he prays to invoke the inherent jurisdiction.
of 20 cents of land in Re-Sy.No.179/12/2 of Kizhakkambalam
Crl.M.CNo.3086/12
2
Village, Kunnathunadu Taluk with Block No.25. He purchased the property for a sale consideration of Rs. 70,000/- by virtue of sale deed No.7871/2005 from one M.K. David and he is enjoying that property. The 1st and 2nd accused with the intention of cheating the 2nd respondent committed conspiracy with the help of 3rd and 4th accused and made a forged sale agreement to the effect that the 2nd respondent transferred the property in the name of the 2nd accused (petitioner) for a sale consideration of Rs.95,000/-. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred O.S.No.136/2012 before Munsiff Court, Perumbavoor by using that forged sale agreement. After verifying the documents in O.S.136/2012, it is found that the document produced by the petitioner is a forged document. Now the civil case is pending before Court. Hence, the 2nd respondent filed the above complaint, which is under investigation.
Crl.M.CNo.3086/12 3
Munsiff Court, Perumbavoor as O.S.No.136/2012. There is bar for taking cognizance of the offence u/s.193 IPC. According to Section 195 (1) (b) (i) of Cr.P.C, no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, namely, sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, except on a complaint in writing of that Court or by such officer of the Court as that Court may authorise in writing in this behalf. Hence, the trial is a mere abuse of the process of the Court.
Crl.M.CNo.3086/12
4
power of taking cognizance was restricted to certain offences mentioned u/s.195 Cr.P.C. Section 195 Cr.P.C. reads as
follows:
“195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence. (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, 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;
(b) (i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely, sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or (ii) of any offence described in section 463, or punishable under section 471, section 475 or section 476, of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, or (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in sub-clause (i) or subclause (ii),
except on the complaint in writing of that Court or by such officer of the Court as that Court may authorise in writing in this behalf, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate.
(2) Where a complaint has been made by a public servant under clause (a) of sub-section
Crl.M.CNo.3086/12
5
(1) any authority to which he is administratively subordinate may order the withdrawal of the complaint and send a copy of such order to the Court; and upon its receipt by the Court, no further proceedings shall be taken on the complaint:
Provided that no such withdrawal shall be ordered if the trial in the Court of first instance has been concluded.
(3) In clause (b) of sub-section (1), the term “Court” means a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court, and includes a tribunal constituted by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act if declared by that Act to be a Court for the purpose of this section.
(4) For the purpose of clause (b) of subsection (1), a Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the appealable decrees or sentences of such former Court, or in the cases of a Civil Court from whose decrees no appeal ordinarily lies, to the principal Court having ordinary original civil jurisdiction within whose local jurisdiction such Civil Court is situate:
Provided that-
(a) where appeals lie to more than one Court, the Appellate Court of inferior jurisdiction shall be the Court to which such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate;
(b) where appeals lie to a civil and also to a Revenue Court, such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Civil or Revenue Court according to the nature of the case or proceeding in connection with which the offence is alleged to have been committed.”
6. Section 195(1) (b) (i) explains that no court shall
take cognizance of any offence punishable u/s.193 to 196
(both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228
of IPC, when such offence is alleged to have been committed
Crl.M.CNo.3086/12 6
in, or in relation to, any proceedings in any court except on the complaint in writing of that Court or by such officer of the Court as that Court may authorise in writing in this behalf, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate. Here, no such incident was occurred. Therefore, the private prosecution was initiated by the 2nd respondent against the petitioner u/s.193 IPC. According to Section 193 IPC, a person intentionally gives false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding, or fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment and fine. Therefore, in such cases, the direction given u/s.195(1)(b)(i) Cr.P.C. is mandatory and this is a statutory restriction given to the general power of the Magistrate for taking cognizance of any offence.
Crl.M.CNo.3086/12
7
O.S.No.136/2012, he know about the alleged sale agreement.
The police is investigating the case. Annexure-1 FIR shows that prima facie case is made out against the petitioner. If that be the position, this is not a fit case to invoke the inherent jurisdiction and quash the proceedings. One important aspect to be noticed at this stage is that the learned Magistrate, who forwarded the complaint to the Sub Inspector of Police, Thadiyattaparamba Station, did not consider the avements in the complaint. The statutory bar mentioned u/s.195(1) was not considered by him.
“where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, the proceedings are liable to be quashed”.
Crl.M.CNo.3086/12
8
Therefore, this is a fit case to invoke the inherent jurisdiction to quash the investigation u/s.193 IPC and I do so. However,
I make it clear that this will not affect the investigation
progressing u/s.420, 465, 468, 471, 120B r/w.34 IPC.
With this observation, Crl.M.C. is party allowed.
P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE.
acd
Crl.M.CNo.3086/12 9
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court erred in invoking inherent jurisdiction to quash the investigation under Section 193 IPC for fabrication of false evidence in a pending civil suit without convening the court t
Whether a prima facie case existed to justify the initiation of criminal proceedings alleging forgery in a sale agreement.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana v. BhajanlalApplied¶72
State of Haryana V. Bhajanlal [1992 SCC (Crl) 426] · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Purushothaman Pillai
State of Kerala
Sathyaseelan
P.D. Rajan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
