Petitioner sought quashing of proceedings under Section 182 IPC alleging false information given during investigation. Court held such statements cannot substitute the initial FIR for conviction under Section 182 IPC and quashed proceedings.
Complaint, notice of accusation and all subsequent proceedings under Section 182 IPC are 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.
Crl. Misc. No. M-13180 of 2008 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Misc. No. M-13180 of 2008
Date of Decision: May 7, 2009
Rakesh Kumar
…..Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab and another
…..Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.
-.-
Present:Mr. A.S. Virk, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. P.S. Sidhu, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
-.-
M.M.S. BEDI, J.
Through instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks the quashing of Calendra/ complaint No.72 dated June 12, 2007, annexure P-7, under Sections 182 IPC, notice of accusation dated July 21, 2007, annexure P-8 and all the proceedings emanating therefrom. Petitioner claims that on February 6, 2004 at about 6.30 p.m. while he was present in his shop alongwith his father, one unknown Sikh person about 45
Crl. Misc. No. M-13180 of 2008 [2]
years supporting beard, came to their shop and ask them to handover whatever was available with them. As the petitioner had sent the keys of the locker to his home, the said person called his another companion inside the shop who was also a Sikh person aged about 35 years wearing a turban. Both the accused persons took out pistols. Meanwhile, nephew of the petitioner Sandeep Kumar came in the shop. He was also detained there. When one of the accused person tried to close the shutter of the shop, the petitioner threw a bench on him and raised alarm and rushed out of the shop on which they fired shots from their pistol with an intention to kill the petitioner but the shots hit the glasses of the shop and its splinters hit on the face of the petitioner. An FIR No.43 dated February 6, 2004 under Sections 307, 382, 511, 34 IPC read with Section 25/54/59 of the Arms Act was registered at Police Station Sirhind. The petitioner was medico legally examined. His MLR was prepared. The assailants could not be traced. Therefore, the police presented untraced report before the Illaqa Magistrate. Copy of the untraced report dated October 22, 2004 has been attached with the petition as annexure P-3. Illaqa magistrate after recording the statement of the petitioner on March 30, 2005 sent the case back to the police for further investigation. The investigating agency again could not trace the assailants as such submitted untraced report dated May 13, 2006 before the Illaqa Magistrate. The untraced report dated May 13, 2006 is appended with the petition as annexure P-4. Petitioner was again summoned by the Court. His statement was recorded, disagreeing with the untraced report but the ACJM, Fatehgarh Sahib vide order dated March 17, 2007 accepted the
Crl. Misc. No. M-13180 of 2008 [3]
untraced report, however, giving liberty to the petitioner to file private complaint. As the petitioner did not identify the culprits, he did not file private complaint.
Respondent No.2 filed a compliant dated June 4, 2007 under Section 182 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner in the Court of ACJM, Fatehgarh Sahib, on June 12, 2007, annexure P-7, mentioning therein that the petitioner, during the course of investigation had told that Jatinder Kumar and Brij Lal were responsible for the incident. DSP had enquired about the incidence from Jatinder Kumar and Brij Lal and it was found that on the night of the incident Jatinder Kumar had gone to Bombay and Jatinder Kumar had to get bail from the High Court but he was declared innocent by DSP vide report dated October 16, 2004. It was mentioned in the complaint that the petitioner had levelled false allegations against Jatinder Kumar as he is in litigation with Jatinder Kumar regarding landed property as such he had mislead the police and wasted time of the State. The Court of Additional CJM, Fatehgarh Sahib took the cognizance of the complaint and served a notice of accusation dated July 21, 2007 on the petitioner, annexure P-8. The petitioner challenges the complaint and notice of accusation mainly on the ground that the incident had actually taken place. There has been trespassing and firing on the shop of the petitioner. It was only the police who had failed to trace and book the real assailants. A number of persons had been interrogated including the persons who were having litigation with the petitioner or his family members.
Crl. Misc. No. M-13180 of 2008 [4]
I have heard counsel for the petitioner and gone through the contents of the FIR registered by the petitioner wherein the petitioner had not named any accused. He had only mentioned that unidentified persons had trespassed in the shop and fired at the petitioner and his father. So far as the name of Jatinder Kumar Brij Lal is concerned, it is not mentioned in the information under Section 154 IPC but their names were disclosed as suspects in the subsequent statements during investigation. The short question which arises for determination in the present case is whether a statement made during the course of investigation under Section 157 Cr.P.C. could form basis for launching prosecution for offence under Section 182 IPC. Presuming that a statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. had been made by the petitioner suspecting two persons, would the said statement constitute a ground for launching prosecution under Section 182 IPC. Section 182 IPC reads as follows:-
“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 the 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
Crl. Misc. No. M-13180 of 2008 [5]
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 month, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.”
A perusal of the provisions of Section 182 IPC indicates that giving of false information knowing the same to be false to a public servant would constitute an offence under Section 182 IPC. Giving of any information of any such purpose mentioned in Section 182 IPC can only be one falling under Section 154 Cr.P.C. If a person gives any subsequent statement during the course of enquiry or investigation supplementing the original information on the basis of suspicion the said information cannot be the basis of any offence falling under Section 182 IPC. Any statement made to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. would be hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C. and cannot be used for any other purpose. A similar question had cropped up in Sudarsan Barhambhat Vs. Emperor , AIR (34) 1947 Patna 64, wherein it was held as follows:-
“Under Section 182, the information which is penalized is an information which is intended to cause or known to be likely to cause the public servant concerned to take action in one of the
Crl. Misc. No. M-13180 of 2008 [6]
ways specified in the section. Here, information within this meaning had already been given and the law had already been set in motion. Further statements made in the course of the investigation would not, to my mind, be further information in this sense.”
It was followed subsequently by Gujarat High Court in Kantilal Damodardas Vs. State of Gujarat , AIR 1970 Gujarat 218. A similar view has been taken by Calcutta High Court in Ananga Mohun Dutta Vs. Emperor , AIR 1919 Calcutta 501. The judgment of Calcutta High Court is reproduced as under:-
“In this case a Rule has been issued to show cause why the prosecution of the petitioner under S.182 IPC, should not be quashed. It appears that in his complaint the petitioner made no statement which can be said to be false. It is not denied that the hukka was stolen from his house. As to the person or persons who stole it, all that he said in his compliant was that he suspected two persons. That does not amount to giving false information. The Rule is accordingly made absolute and the proceedings against the petitioner are quashed.”
In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has been made to face proceedings under Section 182 IPC on the basis of a
Crl. Misc. No. M-13180 of 2008 [7]
statement which was made by him during investigation/ enquiry. For warranting conviction under Section 182 IPC, it is the “information” falling under Section 154 Cr.P.C. that could constitute basis for launching proceedings or under Section 182 IPC. The proceedings under Section 182 IPC have been initiated against the petitioner not only on the basis of information given by him under Section 154 Cr.P.C. but on the basis of the statement made by him during the course of investigation which is not permissible as such the complaint dated June 12, 2007, notice of accusation dated July 21, 207 and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are not sustainable in the eyes of law and hereby quashed.
Allowed in the aforesaid terms.
May 7, 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a statement made during investigation under Section 157 Cr.P.C. can form the basis for launching prosecution under Section 182 IPC.
Whether further statements made in the course of enquiry supplementing the original information can constitute ground for prosecution under Section 182 IPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sudarsan Barhambhat Vs. EmperorDistinguished¶32
Sudarsan Barhambhat Vs. Emperor, AIR (34) 1947 Patna 64 · Who else cites this
Kantilal Damodardas Vs. State of GujaratFollowed¶35
Kantilal Damodardas Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1970 Gujarat 218 · Who else cites this
Ananga Mohun Dutta Vs. EmperorFollowed¶36
Ananga Mohun Dutta Vs. Emperor, AIR 1919 Calcutta 501 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Rakesh Kumar
State of Punjab
M.M.S. BEDI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
