Abdul Rehman and others v/s K.M. Anees -Ul-Haq

Advertisements

FACTS

The respondent and four other individuals were named in a complaint made by the appellant to the crime against women unit for allegedly violating the dowry prohibition act and section 406 of the IPC. In response to the appellants’ filing of a complaint with CAWC, the respondent complainant requested an order of anticipatory bail from the sessions judge. An order granting bail was passed in the respondent According to the complainant’s argument under Section 211 of the IPC, the allegations made by the appellant in the report submitted to CAWC were completely untrue and made up. The magistrate considered the section 211 IPC complaint and came to the opinion that a complaint for an offence punishable by section 211 IPC is maintainable even at the stage of an investigation into a first information report. The session judge dismissed the criminal appeal thereagainst as time-barred. By the impugned order, the High Court dismissed the section 482 petition against, concluding that the section 195 CrPC bar was not applicable because no legal action was ongoing in any court at the time the respondent complainant filed the complaint under sections 211 and 500 IPC.

LEGAL ISSUES

1. Whether the anticipatory bail proceedings would constitute judicial proceedings?
2. Whether the offence allegedly committed by the appellants could be said to have been committed in relation to any proceedings?

CONTENTION OF APPELLANT

The appellants claim that the bar in Section 195 CrPC was drawn to the complaint made by the respondent because the alleged offence they committed was “in relation to the proceedings” in the court that the complainant had approached for the grant of bail and where the court in question had granted the bail he had requested. All that needs to be determined is what the true meaning of the phrase “in relation to, any proceeding in any court” in Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 actually means, and specifically whether or not the respondent’s grant of bail in connection with the FIR registered against him would trigger the bar in Section 195 CrPC. We might briefly recap the background information before we refer to the provisions of Section 195 CrPC.

CONTENTION OF RESPONDENTS

The skilled lawyer for the respondent then argued that even though an offence under Section 211 IPC cannot be convicted, there was no justification for hindering with the proceedings insofar as they related to the commission of an offence under Section 500 IPC, as the bar of Section 195 CrPC was not relevant to the proceedings under Section 500 IPC. Although appealing, the argument doesn’t stand up to closer examination.

JUDGMENT

The court of session judge’s bail processes in the matter that the appellants had filed with CAWC were judicial proceedings, and the offence punishable under section 211 IPC that the appellants are alleged to have committed was related to the aforementioned proceedings. Given these conditions, it is evident that the complaint the respondent filed against the appellants under Section 211 IPC was drawn to the bar in Section 195 CrPC. The High Court appears to have seemed uninformed that the real issue on its schedule was to decide if bail proceedings were identical to judicial proceedings, There is not any way near the conclusion that any offence punishable under section 211 IPC could only be taken cognizance of at the request of the court in relation to whose proceedings the same was committed or who eventually dealt with it once it is held that the bail proceedings amounted to judicial proceedings, and that they were prior in point of time to the taking of cognizance by the Metropolitan Magistrate of offence under section 211 IPC alleged against the appellants. It would neither be just nor even legally permissible while the lawsuits against the respondent under section 406 IPC and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are currently pending before the court, to permit concurrent actions for the appellants’ prosecution under section 211 at the proper time. However, the framework of facts for both offences is the same. The interests of justice would not be served by allowing the respondents to continue prosecuting the appellants for the offence covered by Section 500, and it could lead to the appellants having issues again over the same facts. The court handling the charge sheet filed against the respondent under section 406 IPC/Sections 3/4, DP act has been asked to transfer the allegation made by the respondent under section 211 IPC. The complaint will be handled by the court as an application to file a complaint under section 211, to be examined and resolved upon at the conclusion of the trial subject to taking into account the provisions of section 340 CrPC. After the said final conclusion of the trial, the respondent is free to proceed with the complaint insofar as it relates to the commission of the offence punishable under section 500.

REFERENCES

https://www.scconline.com/Members/SearchResult.aspx

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1001315/

This Article is Written by Khushaal Shukla of Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies

Admin