Smt. Saroj Mishra vs State Of U.P. And Another

Smt. Saroj Mishra vs State Of U.P. And Another

Introduction

The present case is an application filed under S. 482 of CrPC, to get the order of the additional chief judicial magistrate of Budaun, passed in criminal case no. 3 of 2013 arising from CC no. 592 of 2012 under Ss. 419, 420, 468, 471, 177, 181 IPC, quashed.

Facts of the case

The case issue starts from the registering of cases against Yad Ram @ Santosh, Raja Ram and Kishori Lal(opposite party 2 in the present case). The allegations of that case are that on 27/7/2023 at about 8:00 am, the applicant in the present case was going to office to attend her duty as Aganbari Karyakarti. When she arrived near Devi temple, the accused came to her, with an illegal weapon,  and demanded ten thousand rupees and gave threats of bad consequences if the amount was not given. She, also, alleged that they used abusive words against her and Kishori and Raja Ram beat her and caused  internal injuries to her. She stated that hearing her shouting and screaming Latoori, Mahendrapal and her husband Satyaveer came to rescue her. Seeing them, the three ran away by giving life threats to her. The same was stated by her to the magistrate under S. 200 CrPC. Mahendrapal stood as PW 2 and supported her statement.

After coming to know about the case, Kishori lal, filed a case against them. The same was registered as CC no. 592 of 2012 under Ss. 419, 420, 468, 471, 177 and 181 IPC. The allegations are that mahendrapal was under detention from 19/07/2023 to 28/07/2023 in crime no. 664 of 2011. The alleged incident in which he stood as witness has occurred on 27/07/2023. The allegation was that either he had given false evidence before the court or he had sent some other person to jail in his place. The police had taken the case and filed charge sheet before the additional chief judicial magistrate. The magistrate had taken cognizance  of the case and issued summons to the applicant in the present case and other parties.

Contention of the applicant

The applicant contended that the cognizance taken  by the additional chief judicial magistrate was illegal as it was taken on private complaint, without regard to the bar, given under S. 195 CrPC. 

Contention of the respondent

The respondent had contended that the cognizance was legal. The offences  that were made out were other than  those that are given under S. 195 IPC and can be taken cognizance by the magistrate even of private complaint.

Issues 

Whether the cognizance taken was legal, given a bar under S. 195 CrPC?

Judgement

Section 195 of CrPC bars court to take cognizance in case of offences punishable under 172 to 188 of the Indian Penal Code except on complaint of a public servant. No private complaint shall be entertained in this matter. In the present case the offence committed was before the court and the complaint has to be made by the court itself. The court discussed the necessary ingredients  of S. 177 IPC. They are 

1. Accused was bound legally to give information.
2. The information was to be given to a  public servant.
3. The accused give certain information as true though he/she knows it to be false.
4. The information was regarding an offence.

The court found that all the essentials were  satisfied in the present case.

In the case of State of UP vs Mata Bhikh Singh, it was observed that the object was to avoid false complaints on insufficient grounds and with malice intent. S. 195 is mandatory and any cognizance by setting aside the section will be without jurisdiction.

Further the court relied on Soni Dinesh Kumar Dahyalal Vs. State of Gujarat and Abdul Rehman and another Vs. K.M. Anees-Ul-Haq.

The court relying on above cases  held that the cognizance taken was without jurisdiction. Even though it was stated that the offences  for which summons were  given were Ss. 419, 420, 468 and 471 IPC, the court held that prima facie the offences were those specified under S. 195 CrPC. With the  above observations, the court had disposed of the case. The court also held that the present judgement does not make all the material invalid. The trial court still use the charge sheet and other material.

Conclusion

The present case is relating to S. 195 of CrPC. The case with the issue of importance of the complainant in case of offences punishable under  Ss. of the Indian penal Code. It was cleared in the case that any cognizance taken by any magistrate save as upon a complaint made by such a public servant is without jurisdiction and is void. 

References 

https://www.allahabadhighcourt.in/apps/status/index.php/case-number

This case analysis is done by Avula Veerabhadra Reddy from Central University of South Bihar, a legal intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Admin