Muthuvelu Kudumburan and Another vs Samiayya Kudumburan

King, J.—This reference from the learned Sessions Judge of West Tanjore raises an interesting point of law. The facts are that on the 25th

September, 1935, the wife of one Samiayya Kudumburan died in the village of Avarambatti. Information was given to the Village Munsif of that

village that the death had been due to beating by her husband. The Village Munsif went to the nearest Police Station and gave a report

incorporating this information. The result of the police investigation was reported to the Sub-Magistrate to the effect that the complaint was not true

and that the death was due to natural causes and the Sub-Magistrate passed orders treating the case in this light and directing its removal from the

police file. Then Samiayya Kudumburan, the husband of the deceased woman, filed a private complaint before the Sub-Magistrate against the

Village Munsif and also against his informant accusing them of having given false information to the police with a view to prosecute him on a charge

of murder. The complaint was taken on file by the Sub-Magistrate u/s 182, Indian Penal Code and he held an enquiry u/s 202, Criminal Procedure

Code. At the conclusion of the enquiry the Magistrate filed the case, no longer u/s 182 but under S.211, Indian Penal Code. When the trial of the

case was about to begin, the Village Munsif, one of the accused, took a preliminary objection that on the facts of the case the complaint disclosed

an offence u/s 182 and that u/s 195, Criminal Procedure Code, no complaint could be entertained by the Magistrate of an offence u/s 182 except

upon the written complaint of the Sub-Inspector of Police. The Magistrate overruled this objection but the learned Sessions Judge is of opinion that

it is a valid one and has submitted the case for the orders of the High Court.

There is no doubt that in this case both Section 182 and Section 211 can be applied to the facts alleged in the complaint. The learned Sessions

Judge considers that he is bound by the ruling in Ravanappa Reddi, In re (1931) 62 M.L.J. 735 : ILR 55 Mad. 343. That is a case in which a

private person made a complaint of forgery and a conviction was bad under Sections 467 and 109, Indian Penal Code. But it was found that on

the facts of the complaint the intention of the person who abetted the forgery was clearly that the forged document should be used in a judicial

proceeding and therefore what he did constituted also an offence u/s 193. It was held by the learned Judges who decided that easy that the

provisions of Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code could not be evaded by ignoring these elements of the offence, which brought it u/s 193

and by the Court confirming its attention to the other elements of the offence which alone were necessary to prove the applicability of Section 467.

It will be seen therefore on a careful analysis of this case that the principle involved is this, that when a complaint is made there must be no splitting

up of the facts, and the Court is not entitled to disregard some of the facts and try or convict an accused person for an offence which the remaining

facts disclose but the Court must consider the facts as a whole and if these facts disclose an offence for which a special complaint is necessary

under the provisions of Section 195 a Court cannot take cognizance of the case at all unless that special complaint has been filed. It will now be

clear that when the present case is examined what the learned Sessions Judge recommends should be done is the exact opposite of this procedure.

There is no doubt that Section 182 which is a general section relating to false information of a general kind given with the intention of making a

public servant do what he would not otherwise have done or cause injury to any other person can be made to apply to the facts of this case. But if

all the facts are considered, it is quite clear that the motive of the Village Munsif and the co-accused was to induce the public servant not merely to

do what he would not otherwise have done but to take the specific action of investigating the offence and prosecuting the person complained

against. It is therefore clear that if the whole of the facts in this case are examined the only section which is appropriate and which must be applied

is Section 211, and it would be obviously anomalous and in every respect undesirable if the law were that simply because an offence u/s 182 was

also disclosed and because for the trial of such an offence a written complaint from a public servant is necessary the Court should be debarred

from enquiring into the real nature of the offence which comes within Section 211. In the present case it is quite clear that a complaint u/s 211 can

be made by a private person. If we therefore follow the principle of Ravanappa Reddi, In re (1931) 62 M.L.J. 735 : ILR 55 Mad. 343, it leads us

to this position, that in this case the Court must regard this complaint as being one u/s 211 privately, and, as I have just said, it cannot be prevented

from trying the case u/s 211 because the Sub-Inspector has not filed a written complaint of the minor offence u/s 182. I am accordingly of opinion

that the order of the learned Magistrate refusing to accept the preliminary objection of the Village Munsif in this case was right. The records will be

returned to him and he is directed to proceed with the trial of the case u/s 211, Indian Penal Code and dispose of it according to law.