Bhuan Kahar vs Emperor

Kulwant Sahay, J.—The petitioner Bhuan Kahar lodged a complaint before the Police to the effect that he was carrying certain articles of presents from his master Dwarka Singh to a relative of his when in the way he was waylaid by Shiva Gope and others who forcibly took away the articles from him. The police investigated into the matter and reported the case to be false. There was a protest petition on behalf of the petitioner upon which the Deputy Magistrate made an enquiry and examined certain witnesses. He was, however, not satisfied as regards the truth of the complaint and he dismissed the complaint u/s 203, Criminal Procedure Code, by his order dated the 26th March 1924. By the same order he directed proceedings u/s 476, Criminal Procedure Code, to be drawn up sanctioning the prosecution of the petitioner u/s 211, Indian Penal Code. Against the order of the Deputy Magistrate the petitioner went in appeal before the learned Sessions Judge who has declined to interfere. Against this order of the learned Sessions Judge which is, dated 26th May 1924 the petitioner comes up in revision to this Court.

The point taken on behalf of the petitioner is that all that the Deputy Magistrate found was that the complainant had failed to prove his case, and if the complainant had failed to prove his case that does not necessarily show that the complaint made by the petitioner was intentionally false and made with intent to cause injury to any person or with the intent of falsely charging any person with having committed an offence. The fact that the complainant fails to prove his case is by itself not sufficient to sanction a prosecution u/s 211 of the Indian Penal Code. It must be established satisfactorily in the mind of the Judge or the Magistrate that the complaint was made with intent to cause injury or that it was a false complaint made with the knowledge that it was false. In the present case all that has been found is that the evidence produced by the complainant does not establish a prima facie case against Shiva Gope and others. The facts appear to be that Shiva Gope was the servant of Dwarka Singh, who is the master of the present petitioner. There was an altercation in which the son of Dwarka Singh chastised Shiva Gope for neglecting in looking after the cattle. Shiva Gope appears to have retaliated and to have beaten the son of Dwarka Singh. Thereupon it appears that Shiva Gope with the members of his family was beaten and they had to leave the village. Shortly after that, Dwarka Singh had occasion to send some articles of presents to a relative of his through the petitioner and the petitioner''s case is that while he was carrying those articles he was waylaid by Shiva Gope and some relatives of his and the articles were snatched away from him. Now it is possible that the complaint might have been made in the present case at the instance of Dwarka Singh in order to put Shiva Gope into trouble. It is also possible that having regard to the fact that Shiva Gope had to leave his home and had to go away from the village to another village, his intention was to retaliate and he might with that object have taken away the articles which he knew belonged to Dwarka Singh and which were being carried by the petitioner on behalf of Dwarka Singh to a relative of his.

Under these circumstances, it cannot be said with any amount of certainty that the complaint lodged by the petitioner was a deliberately false complaint. No doubt, it has been found that the evidence adduced by the petitioner was not sufficient to make out any prima facie case against Shiva Gope and others but that by itself would not justify a Court in ordering a prosecution u/s 211 of the Indian Penal Code. Under the circumstances of the case I consider that no complaint for an offence u/s 211, Indian Penal Code, ought to be made in the present case.

The order of the Deputy Magistrate u/s 476, Criminal Procedure Code, is, therefore, set aside.