advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Tuesday, July 8, 2014

Sec.182 IPC - wife filed complaint against in-laws - ended in compromise - Husband gave a complaint against wife alleging she filed a false case and register a case under sec.182 - police register the case - sanction was also given - challenged - High court dismissed the petition - Apex court held that To make out a case u/s 182 IPC, the following ingredients are to be proved: (i) An information was given by a person to a public servant. (ii) The information was given by a person who knows or believes such statement to be false. (iii)Such information was given with an intention to cause or knowing it to be likely to cause (a) such public servant to do not to do anything 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, In the present case, the investigating agency has failed to show that the appellant has given information which she was knowing and believing to be false. In the investigation report it has not been reported that the appellant was knowing that the information given is false but still gave the information to harass the respondent No.3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 having failed to make out a case u/s 182 IPC, we are of the opinion that it was a fit case to quash the proceedings u/s 182 IPC. The High Court failed to notice the relevant facts and mechanically dismissed the application u/s 482 Cr.PC.= SANTOSH BAKSHI … APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. … RESPONDENTS = 2014 – June. Part -http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41712

   Sec.182 IPC - wife filed complaint against in-laws - ended in compromise - Husband gave a complaint against wife alleging she filed a false case and register a case under sec.182 - police register the case - sanction was also given - challenged - High court dismissed the petition - Apex court held that To make out a case u/s 182 IPC, the following ingredients  are  to  be
proved:
(i)   An information was given by a person to a public servant.
(ii)  The information was given by a  person  who  knows  or  believes  such
statement to be false.
(iii)Such information was given with an intention to cause or knowing it  to
be likely to cause (a) such public servant to do not to do anything  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,
 In the present case, the investigating agency has failed to show  that
the appellant has given information which she was knowing and  believing  to
be false. In the investigation report it has  not  been  reported  that  the
appellant was knowing that the information given is  false  but  still  gave
the information to harass the respondent No.3.
 Respondent Nos.1 and 2 having failed to make out a case u/s  182  IPC,
we are of the opinion that it was a fit case to quash  the  proceedings  u/s
182  IPC.  The  High  Court  failed  to  notice  the  relevant   facts   and
mechanically dismissed the application u/s 482 Cr.PC.=


Section 182 IPC relates to false information,  with  intent  to  cause
public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another  person  and
reads as follows:
“182. False information, with intent to cause  public  servant  to  use  his
lawful power to the injury of another person.- Whoever gives to  any  public
servant any information which he knows or believes to  be  false,  intending
thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that  he  will  thereby  cause,
such public servant-
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
 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  to  one  thousand
rupees, or with both.”

To make out a case u/s 182 IPC, the following ingredients  are  to  be
proved:
(i)   An information was given by a person to a public servant.
(ii)  The information was given by a  person  who  knows  or  believes  such
statement to be false.
(iii)Such information was given with an intention to cause or knowing it  to
be likely to cause (a) such public servant to do not to do anything  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,
17.   In the present case, the investigating agency has failed to show  that
the appellant has given information which she was knowing and  believing  to
be false. In the investigation report it has  not  been  reported  that  the
appellant was knowing that the information given is  false  but  still  gave
the information to harass the respondent No.3.
18.   Respondent Nos.1 and 2 having failed to make out a case u/s  182  IPC,
we are of the opinion that it was a fit case to quash  the  proceedings  u/s
182  IPC.  The  High  Court  failed  to  notice  the  relevant   facts   and
mechanically dismissed the application u/s 482 Cr.PC.
19.   For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the impugned order dated  12th
July, 2013 passed by the High Court of Punjab  and  Haryana  at  Chandigarh,
quash the complaint filed by respondent no.3  u/s  182  IPC,  the  order  of
approval granted by the SSP in November, 2009 and  proceeding  if  initiated
against the appellant.
20.   The appeal is allowed. No costs.

2014 – June. Part -http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41712


                                                                 REPORTABLE
                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1251 OF 2014
                 (arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.7104 of 2013)

SANTOSH BAKSHI                                           … APPELLANT

                                   VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.                             … RESPONDENTS

                               J U D G M E N T


SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA,J.


      Leave granted.
2.    This appeal is directed  against  the  order  dated  12th  July,  2013
passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana  at  Chandigarh  in  Criminal
Miscellaneous No.M-1834 of 2010 (O&M).  By  the  impugned  order,  the  High
Court  rejected  the  petition  filed  u/s  482  of  the  Code  of  Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.PC’) preferred by the appellant.
3.    The case of the appellant is that she got married to  the  brother  of
respondent no.3-Vivek Kumar Bakshi on 4th August, 2006. After marriage,  she
shifted to her matrimonial house at Ludhiana and  just  thereafter  her  in-
laws started demanding dowry. The husband  of  the  appellant  always  stood
with her and protected her from various atrocities committed by in-laws  and
respondent no.3. When the matter became out  of  control  the  appellant  on
17th January, 2009 made a complaint to the Senior Superintendent of  Police,
Jalandhar (now known as Commissioner of Police, Jalandhar) alleging  therein
continuous  harassment,  beating  and  maltreating  meted  out  to  her   in
connection with dowry with specific allegations with date, time etc.
4.    According to the appellant, Police kept the matter  pending  for  long
at the instance of respondent no.3 and refused to take any  action.  No  FIR
was registered in spite of the fact that the complaint disclosed  cognizable
offence.
5.    On 6th  April,  2009,  the  appellant  filed  a  complaint  under  the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005  (hereinafter  referred
to as, ‘the Act’) against  her  in-laws.  In  the  said  case,  her  in-laws
arrived at a compromise with the appellant that they will allow her to  live
in her matrimonial house at Ludhiana. They also agreed that no  maltreatment
will be meted out to her and they will keep her in a nice  manner  and  they
will remain bound by their statements.
6.    Further case of the appellant is that respondent no.3 having  personal
grudge with her husband due to greed of property submitted an  affidavit  on
23rd April, 2009 before the Police Authorities. Respondent no.3 also  stated
that the allegations in the complaint are false and to take action  u/s  182
IPC against the appellant. On 24th April,  2009,  Deputy  Superintendant  of
Police, Jalandhar submitted  a  report  in  which  the  assertions  made  by
respondent no.3 were considered and the complaint was filed in  the  office.
On the basis of affidavit, Police  submitted  a  Calendra  No.18  dated  5th
October, 2009 in the Police Station Division No.1, which  was  prepared  and
presented in the Court by Rajesh Kumar, SI  SHO  Division  No.1,  Jalandhar.
The approval for taking  action  against  the  appellant  u/s  182  IPC  was
obtained from SSP, Jalandhar in November, 2009.
7.     Aggrieved  by  the  aforesaid  false  and  frivolous  Calendra,   the
appellant filed Criminal Miscellaneous  No.M-1834  of  2010  u/s  482  Cr.PC
before the High  Court  of  Punjab  and  Haryana  at  Chandigarh  which  was
rejected by the High Court by impugned order and judgment dated  12th  July,
2013.
8.    Learned counsel for the appellant made the following submissions:
(i)   The High Court  has  wrongly  concluded  that  since  husband  of  the
appellant was not made a party,  complaint was filed with ulterior motive.
(ii) The High Court also failed to consider that in the complaint under  the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005,  the  allegations  are
identical to the complaint made to the Police.

9.    On the other hand, according to learned counsel for  the  respondents,
the appellant all the time filed false and frivolous complaints  before  the
Police Authorities.
10.   In the affidavit (Annexure  P/3)  respondent  no.3  alleged  that  the
appellant has lodged false complaint against his  parents,  sister,  brother
and brother-in-law. Name of Respondent  No.3  was  not  there  but  when  he
helped his old parents, brother, sister and brother-in-law in shifting  from
Ludhiana to Jalandhar then appellant mentioned  his  name.  Respondent  no.3
further alleged that the appellant and her  husband  are  harassing  him  by
lodging false complaint at Ludhaina as well as at  Jalandhar  and  requested
the authorities to take legal action against them u/s  182  IPC.   The  SHO,
P.S. Div. No.1 by note dated 1st May, 2009  forwarded  the  said  affidavit.
The deposition of respondent no.3  was  recorded  by  Executive  Magistrate,
Tehsil, District Ludhiana.  However, the deposition is not on record.
11.   The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar by  letter  dated  24th
April, 2009 referring to the application filed by  the  appellant  intimated
that for the purpose of investigation when the appellant  was  summoned  she
has narrated the matter in the same way as mentioned in her application.  He
further intimated that statement of Vivek Bakshi s/o  Kewal  Krishan  Bakshi
has got recorded. In  his  statement,  Vivek  Bakshi  has  stated  that  the
application which has been moved against him by his sister-in-law  is  wrong
and he has no dispute with her. Moreover,  she  is  intentionally  harassing
him and leveling allegation of dowry against his parents and  others,  which
is absolutely incorrect and wrong.  It was further mentioned in  the  letter
that the said case being related to a family property partition, the  Police
cannot interfere with the same and that a case is pending in Court  and  the
allegations leveled by the  complainant  (appellant  herein)  regarding  the
misappropriation of dowry articles etc. are not proved. The  dowry  articles
and jewellery of the appellant were lying as it is in her  house  and  there
is no truth in the application. It was recommended to file the  application.
 On the basis of such letter, after advise  of  District  Attorney  (Legal),
approval of the SSP, Jalandhar was  taken  and  Calendra  u/s  182  IPC  was
prepared and was ordered to be presented before the Court.
12.   The respondents  have  not  disputed  that  the  complainant-appellant
earlier  submitted  complaint  dated  17th  January,  2009  to  the   Senior
Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar (now known as  Commissioner  of  Police,
Jalandhar). In the said  complaint,  allegation  of  continuous  harassment,
beating and maltreatment of the appellant for demand of dowry with  specific
allegations with date, time etc. were made. It is alleged  that  the  Police
Authorities kept the complaint pending for long and failed to  register  any
FIR.  In  the  meantime,  the  appellant  filed  an  application  under  the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. In the said case,  the
in-laws of appellant arrived at a comprise with the appellant and agreed  to
allow the appellant to live in her matrimonial house at  Ludhiana.  Further,
they also gave assurance that the appellant will not be meted out  with  any
maltreatment and they will keep appellant in nice manner.
13.   The aforesaid fact has not  been  disputed  by  the  respondents.  The
reading of the statement made by the parties clarifies the following facts:
(a)   That the appellant was thrown out of  her  matrimonial  house  at  the
instance of one or other persons among the in-laws.
(b)   Assurance given by in-laws that they will not maltreat  the  appellant
makes a presumption that one or other member of the  family  maltreated  the
appellant.
(c)   Assurance given by the in-laws they will keep the  appellant  in  nice
manner in future, suggests that  the  appellant  was  not  treated  in  nice
manner by one or other member of the family.
14.   The complaint, if made,  by  any  woman  alleging  offence  under  the
Protection of Women from  Domestic  Violence  Act,  2005  committed  by  any
member of the family, the matter is to be looked upon seriously. The  Police
without proper verification and investigation cannot submit  a  report  that
no case is made out. The Investigating Agency is  required  to  make  proper
enquiry not only from the members of the family but  also  from  neighbours,
friends and others. After such enquiry, the Investigating Agency may form  a
definite opinion and file report but it is for the Court to  decide  finally
whether to take cognizance for any offence under any of  the  provisions  of
the Act.
15.   Section 182 IPC relates to false information,  with  intent  to  cause
public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another  person  and
reads as follows:
“182. False information, with intent to cause  public  servant  to  use  his
lawful power to the injury of another person.- Whoever gives to  any  public
servant any information which he knows or believes to  be  false,  intending
thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that  he  will  thereby  cause,
such public servant-
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
 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  to  one  thousand
rupees, or with both.”

16.   To make out a case u/s 182 IPC, the following ingredients  are  to  be
proved:
(i)   An information was given by a person to a public servant.
(ii)  The information was given by a  person  who  knows  or  believes  such
statement to be false.
(iii)Such information was given with an intention to cause or knowing it  to
be likely to cause (a) such public servant to do not to do anything  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,
17.   In the present case, the investigating agency has failed to show  that
the appellant has given information which she was knowing and  believing  to
be false. In the investigation report it has  not  been  reported  that  the
appellant was knowing that the information given is  false  but  still  gave
the information to harass the respondent No.3.
18.   Respondent Nos.1 and 2 having failed to make out a case u/s  182  IPC,
we are of the opinion that it was a fit case to quash  the  proceedings  u/s
182  IPC.  The  High  Court  failed  to  notice  the  relevant   facts   and
mechanically dismissed the application u/s 482 Cr.PC.
19.   For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the impugned order dated  12th
July, 2013 passed by the High Court of Punjab  and  Haryana  at  Chandigarh,
quash the complaint filed by respondent no.3  u/s  182  IPC,  the  order  of
approval granted by the SSP in November, 2009 and  proceeding  if  initiated
against the appellant.
20.   The appeal is allowed. No costs.

                                                          …………………………………………J.
                                               (SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)


                                                          …………………………………………J.
                                     (KURIAN JOSEPH)

NEW DELHI,
JUNE 30, 2014.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.