Natesa Udayar vs Kanagasabai Udayar and Others

Ramaswami, J.—This is a criminal revision case which has been filed against the order of compensation made by the Stationary Sub

Magistrate of Perambalur in C. C. No. 1224 of 1951 and confirmed in C. A. No. 6 of 1952 by the Additional First Class Magistrate of

Tiruchirapalli.

(1a) The facts are : Natesa Udayar, the petitioner before us, of Melamathur filed a complaint against Kanakasabai Udayar and four others alleging

that on 23-9-1951 at about 10 a.m., he was assaulted by the accused when he went with the process server of the Arlyalur District Munsif''s court

to serve summons on the accused. The complaint was taken on file u/s 355, I. P. C., against accused 1 and 5 and u/s 323, I. P. C., against

accused 2, 3 and 4. In support of his case this Natesa Udayar examined himself and three others, viz., P. Ws. 2 and 3, eye-witnesses, and P. W.

4, the process server.

The case for the accused persons was that on account of enmity arising out of civil suit and in which the process was issued, they have been falsely

implicated and that they did not commit the offence. The Sub Magistrate holding that a ''prima facie'' case had been made out, framed a charge u/s

355, I. P. C., against accused 1 and 5 and u/s 323, I. P. C., against accused 2, 3 and 4. The accused pleaded not guilty and further cross-

examined the P. Ws. I need not point out that there were lengthy intervals of time between the date of complaint, examination of P. Ws. in the first

instance, the framing of the charge, and the further cross-examination of the P. Ws. In the stage which began with the further cross-examination, P.

W. 4, the process server, went behind his evidence and managed to throw considerable doubts on the original testimony recorded in court, before

the framing of the charge. The accused persons had nothing to add to their previous statements and they examined three D. Ws. the substance of

whose evidence was that there was service of summons on accused 2, that there was a wordy quarrel between P. W. 1 and accused 2 and there

was an assault and that accused 1 and 3 to 5 were not at all present at that time. The Sub Magistrate holding that the case had not been brought

home to the accused acquitted them and called upon the complainant P. W. 1 to show cause why he should not be ordered to pay compensation

for instituting a false and vexatious complaint. The complainant stated that the case was true and that the process server had been won over and

deposed falsely after receiving illegal gratification from the opposite side. The Sub Magistrate found as follows:

I do not accept the reason shown by the complainant. On the face of the evidence adduced, I conclude that the complainant has preferred a false

and vexatious complaint, against the accused.

He directed the complainant to pay a compensation of Rs. 100 in all to the five accused. In appeal this was confirmed by the Additional First Class

Magistrate and hence this revision. (2) The scope of Section 250, Cr. P. C., and the circumstances which ought to weigh with the Magistrates

before awarding compensation and especially in cases where charges have been framed are set out in the following decisions.

In order to Justify an order of compensation under this section it is necessary to show that the person in question had been accused of an offence

triable by the Magistrate ordering compensation and that the person had been discharged or acquitted and where this is done the Magistrate has

jurisdiction to pass the order. It is immaterial whether the case is triable as a summons case, or as a warrant case or is summarily tried - AIR 1927

175 (Oudh) ; - ''Queen-Empress v. Basava 11 Mad 142. The operation of this section is, however, restricted to cases instituted upon a complaint

or upon information given to a Police Officer or to a Magistrate. It will not apply to a case instituted on a police report or on information given by a

police officer - ''Saleh V. Emperor'' AIR 1932 Bind 156 (C); - ''Ramjewan v. Durgacharan'' 21 Cal 979 (D); - ''Queen-Empress v. Sakar Jan'' 22

Bom 934 (E). But where a police officer initiates criminal proceedings in a non-cognizable case by filing a complaint before a magistrate, the

magistrate has jurisdiction u/s 250, Cr. P. C. ''King-Emperor v. Sada'' 26 Bom 150 (F). Public servants as such are not however exempted from

liability u/s 250, Cr. p. c. ''Narasayya v. Ramdas Naidu'' 2 Weir 317 (G). Compensation can be awarded even to survivors of deceased

complainants who have suffered loss of a pecuniary character and there is nothing in this section to make it non-applicable to the case of the State:

- ''Crown v. Debee Baksh'' 25 Pun Be Cr 1868 (H); - Emperor Vs. Kanver Sen and Others, .

Before making an order of compensation Under this section, the Magistrate must strictly follow the procedure laid down in the section, viz., that he

should be of opinion that a case is false and either is frivolous or vexatious. He should either when pronouncing the order of discharge or acquittal

or without practical delay thereafter call upon the complainant for his explanation; and then after hearing his explanation record his opinion that the

case was false and frivolous or vexatious: - ''Fir Mahomed v. Yacoob'' AIR 1929 Sind 113 (J). The object of this section is not to punish the

complainant but by a summary award to award some compensation to a person against whom a frivolous or vexatious accusation is brought

leaving him to obtain further redress against the complainant if he seeks for it by a regular suit or criminal prosecution:-''Beni Madhub v. Kumud

Kumar'' 30 Cal 123 (K); - ''Nga Myo v. Nga Kyan'' AIR 1914 UB 29 (L); - Venkatarama Aiyar and Others Vs. Krishna Iyer, .

It is no doubt a very salutary provision of law that is embodied in this section. It is meant to Serve as a check on propensities to rush to court

recklessly or to level accusations against innocent people knowing or having reason to believe that they are innocent. It was, however, not to be

indiscriminately used as to be a check on legitimate complaints which may be difficult of proof owing to some reason for which the complainant

may not be responsible. Indiscriminate use of the provisions of this section might often deter a timid person from approaching the portals of law

courts for fear that if per chance his witnesses turned round or somehow did not inspire confidence in the courts he may be mulcted in fine: -

''Emperor v. Boloch Daryafchan'' AIR 1934 Sind 18 (N).

It has been held time and again that the powers are to be exercised only in fit and proper cases and not indiscriminately in every case in which the

accused is discharged since the virtual effect of an order of compensation is that it amounts to a summary conviction of the complainant; - AIR

1932 Sind 156 (C). Experience in the High Court shows that there is a good deal of abuse in this country of the criminal law. People with civil

disputes frequently attempt to harass their opponents or force them to compromise by starting criminal proceedings. A dispute as to boundaries is

made into a criminal trespass; a dispute between partners is stated to be one of criminal misappropriation or breach of trust; where there is a

perfectly plain case in which criminal proceedings are started not really ''bona fide'' but with a view to bring pressure to bear against the opponent

in a civil dispute, the magistrate will be abundantly justified in proceeding against the complainant under this section: - Dahyabhai Nathabhai Vs.

Tanganio Machhi, .

As qualifying an accusation the term ""frivolous"" indicates that the accusation is of a trivial nature or is ""trifling"", ""silly"" or ""without due foundation"":

- ''Beni Madhub Kurmi v. Kumud Kumar Biswas'' 30 Cal 123 (FB) (K); - ''Mt. Jaina v. Santuk. Das'' AIR 1920 Nag 78 (P & Q). The term

vexatious implies that the accusation is one that ought not to have been made and is intended to ""harass"" - ''Bakaji v. Mukund Singh'' AIR 1920

Nag 108 (R), or ""annoy"" the accused. ''Municipal Committee, Simla v. Mukund Singh'' AIR 1926 Lah 365 (S); - ''Chanan Sing v. Emperor'' AIR

1921 Lah 283 (2) (T); - ''Emperor v. Kouro Jumo'' AIR 1917 Sind 73 (1) (U). Thus where a criminal prosecution is launched on mere suspicion

In Re: Dinshahji Hirjibhai, or with a view to put pressure on an opponent in a civil suit the Magistrate is justified in acting under this section.

Similarly, a false accusation of rape is vexatious to the person accused (''Mst. Daropti v. Parasram'' AIR 1941 Lah 19). But where the

complainant''s case is not an improbable one and is merely unable to prove his case, or there is nothing to show that it is wilfully false or that there

is any perversion or exaggeration of evidence, it is not proper to hold the complaint false and vexatious. Similarly, the fact that the complainant and

the accused are on bad terms is not a sufficient ground for holding that the complaint is a false one. (''Emperor v. Narapati Rai'' 3 Cri LJ 123 (X); -

AIR 1944 25 (Oudh) ; - Bechan Prasad Vs. Jhuri and Others, ; - ''Guldin v. Abdul Khali'' AIR 1935 Pesh 178 (Z1); - Peta Venkayya Vs. S.

Seethayya and Another, ; - ''New Delhi Municipal Committee v. Rambhai'' AIR 1936 Lah 702 (Z3); - ''Maung Pan v. Mg. Mya Din'' AIR 1938

Rang 209 (Z4).

The fact that a magistrate has framed a charge u/s 254, I. P. C. against an accused person does not itself prevent him from holding after full

enquiry that the charge is frivolous and vexatious under this sections Ratanlal 734. But when a Magistrate considers the evidence sufficient to justify

the framing of a charge and subsequently changes his opinion, he must give reasons for so changing. Compensation for a frivolous and vexatious

complaint may be awarded after the evidence for the defence had been heard because it is quite possible that the Magistrate might not be able to

detect the frivolous or vexatious nature of the complaint until the defendant has had an opportunity of explaining the real circumstances in making

his defence (Weir II 316).

If we bear these principles in mind, there can be no doubt that the failure of the case in the instant case was more due to the misfortune of the

complainant than on account of any preferring of a false complaint by him. The motive for the accused to do the acts attributed to them Is clear,

viz., the civil court proceedings. The victim P. W. 1 has immediately after the offence gone to the village munsif and has reported the matter and

has been advised by him to go and prefer a private complaint. It is idle to contend that a wound certificate should have been taken by P. W. 1

because the nature of the injuries on him were such that no wound certificate would throw light on the same. It is quite true that this P. W. 1 has

exaggerated the extent of the criminal force and all that seems to have happened was a general abusing and pushing about the lurid threats. The

doctor will not be able to throw any light on this even if p. W. 1 had gone to one unless he (complainant) inflicted injuries on himself. The eye-

witnesses and the process server have supported this complainant before the framing of the charge. Subsequently after the framing of the charge

the process server, as is very often the case with this tribe, has changed sides and discredited himself and this he was enabled to do because in the

return made by him he has not referred to this assault and which at that stage did not really concern this process server. The evidence for the

defence chiefly comes from D. W. 1 who is closely related to these accused. It is not necessary to multiply these details to show that the case of

the complainant failed on account of two things, viz., that the complainant himself has exaggerated what had happened and secondly, the accused

have successfully won over the process server. This merited no doubt the acquittal but not the award of compensation.

The order of the lower court is set aside and the compensation amount, if paid, will be refunded to the petitioner.