Choudhry Sadhu Charan Singh vs Udho Prasad Singh

Das, J.—This application is directed against an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer of Arrah giving sanction for the prosecution of the petitioner u/s 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code for having committed an offense u/s 182 of the Indian Penal Code. There was an application against this order before the learned Sessions Judge of Arrah, but the learned Sessions Judge thought that the finding of the learned Sub-Divisional Officer was perhaps open to objection on the ground of vagueness. But he saw nothing illegal in the Magistrate''s-procedure which would warrant a reference u/s 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly he rejected the application.

It is argued before me by Mr. Yunus on behalf of the petitioner that the petition presented by his client before the Police, which is the foundation of the proceedings against him, does not contain a single word which is fake and, therefore, he cannot be put on trial for having committed an offence u/s 182 of the Indian Penal Code.

It appears that there have been various disputes between the petitioner and the daughter and son in-law of Babu Nathuni Singh, who died leaving a Will by which he bequeathed his property to his daughter and son-in-law. There have been probate proceedings between the parties and there have been various criminal disputes between the parties.

The petition presented by the petitioner before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate states that Udho Prasad Singh was collecting people from villages. He says that the pretext put forward by Udho Prasad Singh was that they had come for a jalsa, but his apprehension was that steps might be taken against him and his relatives. He thereupon asked for an enquiry to be made at once through the Superintendent of Police as to the fact why the aforesaid person was collecting people. He then proceeds to say that his presence in the Court may be taken note of and protection afforded to him. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate thought after the Police enquiry that the petition was false, vexatious and annoying, and thereupon he has granted sanction u/s 476 of the Code to prosecute the petitioner.

Mr. Yunus on behalf of the petitioner argues that there is not a single statement in the whole petition which may be said to be false. There was undoubtedly, he says, a collection of people for the jalsa. Undoubtedly (that is his next argument) the petitioner had an apprehension in his mind that some steps might be taken against him by the people who had collected, and, as he points out, there were various criminal disputes between the parties which naturally may have caused him a certain amount of alarm, But the question still remains that he did ask for an enquiry and an enquiry was undoubtedly made by the Police Reading the petition as a whole, it appears to me that he does make a charge against Udho Prasad Singh and others for having collected people from the villages for causing him some sort of harm. It is quite possible that there was some apprehension in his mind that they might really do him some harm, and it is not for me now to express any opinion on the case at all. It would not be proper that I should But clearly there was a charge against the opposite party for having collected people from the villages to cause him injury. The question, therefore, is, does it not come u/s 182, Indian Penal Code? The charge against him may be false; it may be proved to be false on evidence, but can I at this stage interfere with the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate? The earned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that he had no power at all and in my opinion he has come to a correct conclusion on this point.

Now the question is, did the petitioner give any information to any public servant which he knew or believed to be false intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that it will thereby cause such public servant to use the lawful power of such public servant to cause injury to any person? That is the whole point. He undoubtedly has given information to a public servant. It has got to be determined in the trial whether that information is false or whether he believed it to be false. I cannot at this stage express any opinion on the point, nor can the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate who disposed of this application. He undoubtedly made the application in order that such public servant may make an enquiry, and of course the whole subject matter of the charge against him now is that his object was to cause the public servant to use the lawful power to the injury or annoyance of some person. I am of opinion that there is no point of law in this matter and that, therefore, I cannot interfere with the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The ease seems to me a very trifling one and it is quite possible that no more than a technical offence under that Section has been committed by the petitioner. It is quite possible that if I had to deal with that application myself I would have come to another conclusion, but that is no ground at all for setting aside in revision an order which is not an illegal order at all. I, therefore, refuse the application.