The High Court allowed a quashing petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. regarding proceedings for using false surveillance reports. The court held that no prior complaint was filed before the Chennai court and no false prices material existed to establish mala fides.
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.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5769 of 2008
ORDER:
This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings in C.C.No.389 of 2008 on the file of
XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad registered under Sections 120-B, 193 and 196 I.P.C.
The petitioner is the accused No.1 and the 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant in the calendar case. For convenience sake, I refer the parties as they are arrayed before the lower Court.
The facts, which led to the filing of the complaint, are as follows:
Admittedly, at the instance of the 3rd accused i.e., the husband of the de facto complainant, one surveillance report dated 09.04.2007 was given by the 2nd accused while he was working in Globe Detective Agency Private Limited and another surveillance report dated 08.08.2007 was given by him while he was working with the 1st accused with regards to the conduct of the de facto complainant. It is the claim of the de facto complainant that the allegations made there under are nothing but false and those reports were filed by the 3rd accused in a matrimonial case at Chennai, Tamil Nadu filed by him for divorce against the complainant and thereby he is liable for contempt of Court and hence, the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 193 and 196 I.P.C.
There is no record to show as to what happened to the divorce case filed before the Court at Chennai. There is also no basis to say as to in what way the reports were used in that case.
Further, it is important that it is not a case where any complaint was given at the Court at Chennai for the purpose of punishing the accused for the said offences. Significantly, the calendar case was filed before the trial Court only on the ground of using the surveillance reports by the Court at Chennai.
Section 195 Cr.P.C. reads as under:
“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 cognisance –
except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate;
(ii) of any offence described in Sec. 463, or punishable under Sec. 471, Sec. 475 or 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
sub-clause (ii),
except on the complaint in writing of that Code, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate.
Provided that no such withdrawal shall be ordered if the trial in the Court of first instance has been concluded.
Provided that-
offence is alleged to have been committed.”
Clause b (iii) is very important as it provides that such a complaint should have been filed before the Court at which such offences alleged to have been committed whereas admittedly, no such complaint was filed before the Court at Chennai. At this stage, there is no basis to say that false surveillance reports were filed by the 2nd accused deliberately and with mala fide intention in collusion with the 3rd accused for the benefit of the 3rd accused before the Court at Chennai. Therefore, there is no sufficient material to prosecute the petitioner-accused No.1 and accordingly, the proceedings in the above said calendar case are to be quashed insofar as the petitioner is concerned.
In the result, the petition is allowed.
G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY,J
Dt. 07.04.2011 lvl
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5769 of 2008
Dt. 07.04.2011
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the proceedings for offences under Section 195 Cr.P.C. regarding false surveillance reports should be maintained absent a prior complaint before the lower court.
Whether the material on record establishes that the surveillance reports were filed deliberately with mala fide intention.
Whether the criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings is maintainable.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Petitioner/Accused No.1
De facto complainant
G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
