Madhav Prasad vs State of M.P.

This revision application has been filed to challenge the order dated 29.04.2015 passed by the Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Morena in Sessions Trial No.70/2014, whereby the trial Court has framed charges against the applicant for commission of offences punishable under Sections 195, 211 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ''IPC'').

The facts leading to filing of the present case are that, a complaint was lodged by the applicant with the police that on 30.3.2013 when he was returning home, four persons obstructed him and during the course of scuffle Banwari Shukla caused injury by firearm, due to which he sustained injuries. The matter was reported to the Police Station Noorabad, District Morena whereupon an F.I.R. bearing Crime No.82/13 for commission of offence punishable under Sections 341 & 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC was registered. Consequently, the police conducted the investigation and it was discovered that the applicant has lodged a false complaint and no such incident has taken place. The police, accordingly, registered a case against the present applicant for commission of offences punishable under Sections 195, 211 & 309 of the IPC on the ground that, he made false complaint and in order to do so he attempted to commit suicide by shooting himself. The chargesheet was submitted. On finding the offences to be triable by the Sessions Court, the concerned Magistrate committed the matter to the Court of Session. The trial Court framed charges punishable under Sections 195, 211 & 309 of IPC. It is this order, which is under challenge in the instant revision application.

The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that, the trial Court has committed grave error in framing charges under Sections 195 & 211 of the IPC as the incident, which is leading to the trial, has not taken place. Hence, the revision application may be allowed and the order framing charges against the applicant be set aside.

To the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that the applicant lodged false report to the police and therefore, no error was committed by the trial Court in framing charges under Sections 195, 211 & 309 of the IPC. Therefore, the revision application deserves to be dismissed.

I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the record. The facts of this case are to be considered in the light of Section 195 of the IPC as well as Section 340 of Cr.P.C. for the reasons that the powers of the Magistrate to take cognizance have been recognized under Section 190 of Cr.P.C., however, the

same has been curtailed under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. . The offences/charges framed by the trial Court fall under Section 195(1)(B) of Cr.P.C. and the manner in which the complaints for these offences are to be tried is prescribed under Section 340 of Cr.P.C.. The reading of Section 340 of Cr.P.C. gives a clear picture that, the trial for any offence falling under Section 195(1)(B) of Cr.P.C. can only be taken forward when the complaint refers to furnishing of false evidence before the Court during the proceedings before the Court. Further, the complaint can only be made to the Court before which the false evidence has been led, whereas, in the facts of the present case, the allegation against the applicant is that, he submitted false complaint before the police for implicating the persons named in the complaint. Thus, the offence falling under Section 195(1)(B) of Cr.P.C. cannot be attracted.

In the context of Section 195 of Cr.P.C., the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Babita Lila & Another vs. Union of India reported in (2016) 9 SCC 647 has analysed the procedure applicable in the following paragraphs :-.

Noticeably in course of the adjudication, it was marked that Section 195 was an exception to an ordinary rule that any person could make a complaint in respect of commission of an offence triable under the Code. The restrictive mandate of this provision of the Code against cognizance of any offence punishable under the sections mentioned therein, when those pertain to any proceedings in any court, except on the compliant in writing of such court or of some other court to which such court is subordinate, was underlined in particular.

This Court, thus emphasised that in the matter of invocation of Section 195(1)(b) of the Code, vis-a-vis a complaint about any of the offences as mentioned therein, an exception to the ordinary rule of making complaint by any person has been carved out and by way of a safeguard, only the court in the proceeding before which such offence had been committed or such officer of the Court as it may authorise in writing or some other court to which to this Court is subordinate, has been legislatively identified as competent to do so.

Section 195(1)(b) of the Code, which is relevant for the instant pursuit, prohibits taking of cognizance by a court vis-a-vis the offences mentioned in the three sub-clauses

(i), (ii) and (iii) except on a complaint in writing of the Court when the offence(s) is/are alleged to have been committed in or in relation to any proceeding before it or in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in such a proceeding or by such officer of that court as it may authorise in writing or by some other court to which the court (in the proceedings before which the offence(s) has been committed) is subordinate. A patently regulatory imposition in the matter of lodging of a complaint for such offences is discernible assuredly to obviate frivolous and wanton complaints by all and sundry.

That the provisions of Section 195 of the Code are mandatory so much so that non- compliance thereof would vitiate the prosecution and all consequential orders, has been ruled by this Court, amongst others in C. Muniappan v. State of T.N., (2010) 9 SCC 567 wherein the following observations in Sachida Nand Singh v. State of Bihar (1998) 2 SCC 493 were recorded with approval.

"7..... Section 190 of the Code empowers "any Magistrate of the First Class" to take cognizance of "any offence" upon receiving a complaint, or police report or information or upon his own knowledge. Section 195 restricts such general powers of the Magistrate, and the general right of a person

to move the court with a complaint is to that extent curtailed. It is a well- recognised canon of interpretation that provision curbing the general jurisdiction of the court must normally receive strict interpretation unless the statute or the context requires otherwise....."

(emphasis supplied)

Taking note of the reproduced portion of the judgment, in the light of the facts of the present cases, it is crystal clear that the framing of charge punishable under Section 195 & 211 of the IPC is contrary to the Section 195 read with Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the revision application is allowed in part and the impugned order is modified to the extent that in place of Sections 195 & 211 of the IPC, Section 182 of IPC shall be substituted and the remaining order with respect to offence punishable under Section 309 of IPC shall remain intact. The trial Court shall accordingly proceed further in accordance with law.