//
you're reading...
legal issues

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.

Advertisements

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 1,848,935 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,868 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com