Shiv Kumar Prasad Singh and Another vs State of Bihar

M.P. Varma, J.—The petitioners aforementioned have been summoned by the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Danapore, to take their trial on charges u/s 182 read with Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter to be referred to as the Penal Code). The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence by order dated the 6th July, 1982, which is under challenge in this application.

In order to appreciate the points involved in this case, it appears necessary to put in brief the facts giving rise to this application.

One Tribuwan Prasad Singh of Naubatpur Block under Naubatpur Police Station in the District of Patna, gave an information in the police to the effect that he was attacked by some criminals on 19.2.1982 at about 6 P.M. The police on getting the information instituted a case and drew up first information report and proceeded with the investigation. Two days after on 21.2.1982. Sheo Kumar Prasad Singh (the petitioner) claiming himself as President of a Political Party of Naubatpur Block convened a meeting in which a resolution condemning the attack on Tribhuwan Prasad Singh was passed. It was also resolved in the meeting that the assault on Tribhuwan Prasad Singh indicated that there was no proper administration of the Government in the Naubatpur Block, inasmuch as the police also appeared to be very much inactive and did not take effective steps to apprehend the assailants. Copies of the resolution passed in the meeting under the President ship of Sheo Kumar Prasad Singh was sent to different officials, including the Superintendent of Police, Patna. On receipt of the copy of the resolution, the Officer-in-charge, Naubatpur Police Station, filed a petition of complaint against both the petitioners for their prosecution on charges under Sections 182 and 211 of the Penal Code. The learned sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, on receipt of the complaint, as aforesaid, took cognizance of the offences and summoned these two petitioners to take their trial.

Mr. Ram Suresh Roy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has submitted that the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate appears to have acted mechanically without appreciating the facts of me case and the impugned order exposes total lack of judicial application of mind. Section 211 of the Penal Code is attracted only when there is an institution of a criminal proceeding on making false charge, as the case may be, with intent to cause injury to any person and having the knowledge that there is no just lawful ground for such proceeding or charge. It is needless to mention here that only a resolution was passed by some numbers of the political party, in a meeting in which the administration was condemned and the police was indicated as being inactive and slow in taking steps in apprehending the criminals. No criminal proceeding was brought in court against the police officer or against any one by these petitioners. Condemnation of the police action for the lack of sense of duty, from a public plat form does not constitute an offence u/s 211 nor u/s 182 of the Penal Code. Likewise transmitting copies of resolution passed in a meeting, to different officials, will never amount to institution of a case in any Court of law with a view to taking action. Section 182 of the Penal Code reads as follows:

Whoever gives to any public servant any information, which he knows or believes to be false, intending thereby to cause, or knowing such public servant-

(a)to do or omit anything which such public servant ought not to do or omit if the true state of facts respecting which such information is given were known by him,

or

(b) to use the lawful power of such public servant to the injury or annoyance of any person.

shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend one thousand rupees, or with both.

It is explicit that the ingredients of the offence under this section are as follows:-A false information or any information which the giver knows or believes it to be false and that information is given to a public servant; and which he gave with intent to influence the public servant to act or otherwise omit to act, which he would have normally done to use his lawful authority in order to cause injuries or annoyance to any person. In the instant case, the information given is, as per the resolution passed in the meeting (a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure 1) that there was a murderous attack on Tribhuwan Prasad Singh in the district of Patna. It was further stated that one Ram Janam Sharma who had come td the rescue of Tribhuwan Prarad Singh was also badly assaulted. In the end it is stated that it appeared to the members in the meeting that there was no administration in the Naubatpur Block and nobody''s life was safe. It was further stated that the police did not take steps to apprehend the criminals alleged to have assaulted Tribhuwan Prasad Singh and Ram Janam Sharma.

Learned Counsel for the State, Shri Shyam Nand Jha, has very fairly conceded that the fact relating to the assault in Tribhuwan Prasad Singh and Ram Janam Sharma cannot be said to be false, more so, in view of the fact that the officer in-charge of Naubatpur Police Station had recorded the statement of the injured victim Tribhuwan Prasad Singh in the hospital where he was admitted for medical aid and treatment of his injuries. The police registered a case and investigation was proceeding. As the case of assault was registered in the police station on the statement of Tribhuwan Prasad Singh and not on the statements of either of these two petitioners, therefore, there is no occasion, muchless any evidence, to hold (bat these two petitioners gave any false information at any stage with intent to cause public servant to use or to omit to use his lawful power. Mere criticism of the administration for the lapses or the police for its inaction and for faulty steps in the investigation does not constitute any offence u/s 182 of the Penal Code.

The police should not have been so sensitive. It was just a fair criticism and instead of rushing to Court, should have been active and alert induty, so that the public in general may propose confidence in the administration of law and order. In the circumstances referred to above, it appears that the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence committed grave error under misconceived notice of law.

In the result, the application succeeds, the impunged order dated the 6th July, 1982, is set aside and the proceeding pending against these petitioners is quashed.,