Whether accused can make Charge Of False Accusation U/S 211 IPC Against Investigating Officer?

 The essentials to be satisfied in  order to attract an offence under Section 211, I.P.C. was elucidated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Santokh Singh &Ors. v. IzharHussan&Anr. (cited supra). The relevant paragraph is

 extracted hereinunder:

“10. […] This section as its marginal note

indicates renders punishable false charge of offence

with intent to injure. The essential ingredient of an

offence under Section 211 IPC is to institute or cause

to be instituted any criminal proceeding against a

person with intent to cause him injury or with similar

intent to falsely charge any person with having

committed an offence, knowing that there is no just or

lawful ground for such proceeding or charge.

Instituting or causing to institute false criminal

proceedings assume false charge but false charge may

be preferred even when no criminal proceedings

result. It is frankly conceded by Shri Kohli that the

appellant cannot be said to have instituted any

criminal proceeding against any person. So that part

of Section 211 IPC is eliminated. Now, the expression

“falsely charges” in this section, in our opinion,

cannot mean giving false evidence as a prosecution

witness against an accused person during the course

of a criminal trial. To “falsely charge” must refer to

the original or initial accusation putting or seeking to

put in motion the machinery of criminal investigation

and not when speaking to prove  the false charge by

making deposition in support of the charge framed in

that trial. The words “falsely charges” have to be read

along with the expression “institution of criminal

proceeding”. Both these expressions, being susceptible

of analogous meaning should be understood to have

been used in their cognate sense. They get as it were

their colour and content from each other. They seem to

have been used in a technical sense as commonly

understood in our criminal law. The false charge must,

therefore, be made initially to a person in authority or

to someone who is in a position to get the offender

punished by appropriate proceedings. In other words,

it must be embodied either in a complaint or in a

report of a cognizable offence to the police officer or

an officer having authority over the person against

whom the allegations are made. The statement in

order to constitute the “charge” should be made with

the intention and object of setting criminal law in motion.{Para 16}

20.This Court had an occasion to consider the judgement of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Perumal v. Janaki (cited supra) in the

judgement in S. MukanchandBothra v. Rajiv Gandhi Memorial

Educational Charitable Trust &Ors (cited supra). The relevant

paragraph is extracted hereinunder:

“7. It is our duty to point out that the alleged offence

of the Sub-Inspector informing in the charge sheet the

pregnancy of the girl concerned despite her medical

certificate informing otherwise, would not and cannot

fall within the definition of Section 211 IPC. It also is

to be seen that Perumal had faced prosecution

pursuant to a Magistrate taking cognizance.

Fortunately, offence of making a false charge does not

stand attracted as otherwise, it would be unfair to

prosecute the Sub-Inspector who filed the charge

sheet, while not doing so, the Judicial Magistrate who

took cognizance thereon. As explained by the Supreme

Court in Santokh Singh v. Izhar Hussain [(1973) 2

SCC 406], ‘the essential ingredient of an offence

under section 211 IPC is to institute or cause, to be

instituted any criminal proceeding against a person

with intent to cause him injury or with similar intent to

falsely charge any person with having committed an

offence, knowing that there is no just  or lawful ground

for such proceeding or charge. Instituting or causing

to institute false criminal proceedings assume false

charge but false charge may be preferred even when

no criminal proceedings result. Now, the expression

“falsely charges” in this section, in our opinion,

cannot mean giving false evidence as a prosecution

witness against an accused person during the course

of a criminal trial. “To falsely charge” must refer to

the original or initial accusation putting or seeking to

put in motion the machinery of criminal investigation

and not when seeking to prove the false charge by

making deposition in support of the charge framed in

that trial. The words “falsely charges” have to be,

read along with the expression “institution of criminal

proceeding”. Both these expressions, being susceptible

of analogous meaning should be understood to have

been. used in their cognate sense. They get as it were

their colour and content from each other. They seem to

have been used in a technical sense as commonly

understood in our criminal law. The false charge must,

therefore, be made initially to a person in authority or

to someone who is in a position to get the offender

punished by appropriate proceedings. In other words,

it must be’ embodied either in a complaint or in a

report of a cognizable offence to the police officer or

to an officer having authority over the person against

whom the allegations are made. The statement in 

order to constitute the “charges” should be made with

the intention and object of setting criminal law in

motion.”

22. In the present case, based on the complaint given by

one Mr. Rajamani, the FIR was registered by the F-2 Police Station,

Egmore and the arrest was also carried out by the said police. The

Petitioner came into the scene only at a later point of time when the

case was transferred to the file of the CBCID. The language used under

Section 211, I.P.C. regarding false charge can only relate to the original

or initial accusation through which the criminal law was set in motion. 

Admittedly, it was not the Petitioner who had set the criminal law in

motion. That apart, as held in Iqbal Singh Marwah’sCase (cited

supra) the offences referred to under Section 195(1)(b), Cr.P.C. will get

attracted only with respect to a document after it has been produced or

given in evidence in a proceeding in any court i.e. during the time when

the document was in custodia legis.

23. In the present case, the main grievance of the

Respondent seems to be that he was unnecessarily made to undergo

the agony of a malicious prosecution. Since this prosecution was

investigated by the Petitioner, the Respondent wants to rope in the

Petitioner as if the said officer prosecuted a false charge. If investigating

officers are going to be exposed to such proceedings in all cases where

the accused persons are acquitted from all charges, it will directly

interfere with the independence of the authority in conducting an

investigation. This is the reason why the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Santokh Singh’s Case (cited supra) held that the words “false

charges” must be read along with the expression “institution of criminal

proceedings”, which relates back to the initiation of criminal proceedings

and it can never be related to an alleged false charge  framed after the

filing of the final report.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

CORAM

 JUSTICE MR.N.ANAND VENKATESH

Crl.O.P No.2514 of 2020 and Crl.MP.No.1536 of 2020

A.Radhika  Vs Wilson Sundararaj .

Dated:26.02.2021

Print Page

Whether complaint filed by private person for offence punishable U/S 211 of IPC is maintainable?

In the present case, complaint is filed praying that the
accused be prosecuted and punished for the offence punishable under
Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code on 19th March, 2011 and prior to
that the complainant was arrested on 16th December, 2010 on the basis
of the report lodged against him, the complainant was produced before
the Magistrate on 17th  December, 2010, the charge­sheet was filed
before the Court on 27th January, 2011 and the police submitted the
proposal on the basis of which the complainant was discharged on 27th
January, 2011.  Thus, in the present case, the complaint is filed after
the proceedings in relation to which the offence is alleged to have been
committed, culminated.

In the judgment given in the case of  M.L. Sethi vs. R.P.
Kapur and another (cited supra), in paragraph No.13 it is laid down
as follows:
“13. In   this   case,   as   we   have   already   indicated   when
enumerating the facts, the complaint of which cognizance
was taken by the Judicial Magistrate at Chandigarh was filed
on April 11, 1959, and at that stage, the only proceeding
that was going on was investigation by the Police on the basis
of the First Information Report lodged by the appellant before
the Inspector­General of Police on December 10, 1958. There
is   no   mention   at   all   that   there   was   at   that   stage   any
proceeding   in   any   Court   in   respect   of   that   F.I.R.   When
examining the question whether there is any proceeding in
any Court, there are three situations that can be envisaged.
One is that there may be no proceeding in any Court at all.
The second is that a proceeding in a Court may actually be
pending at the point of time when cognizance is sought to be
taken of the offence under S. 211   I.P.C. The third is that,
though there may be no proceeding pending in any Court in
which or in relation to which the offence under S. 211 I.P.C.
could   have   been   committed,   there   may   have   been   a
proceeding   which   had   already   concluded   and   the   offence
under S. 211 may be alleged to have been committed in, or
in relation to, that proceeding. It seems to us that in both the
latter two circumstances envisaged above, the bar to taking
cognizance under S. 195(1)(b) would come into operation. If
there be a proceeding actually pending in any Court and the
offence under S. 211 I.P.C. is alleged to have been committed
in relation to that proceeding, S. 195(1)(b) would clearly
apply. Even if there be a case where there was, at one stage, a
proceeding in any Court which may have concluded by the
time the question of applying the provisions of S. 195(1)(b)
arises,   the   bar   under   that   provision   would   apply   if   it   is
alleged that the offence under S. 211, I.P.C., was committed
in   or   in   relation   to,   that   proceeding.   The   fact   that   the

proceeding had concluded would be immaterial, because S.
195(1)(b) does not require that the proceeding in any Court
must actually be pending at the time when the question of
applying this bar arises.”
11. The point which falls for consideration is covered by the
proposition laid down in the judgment given in the case of M.L. Sethi
vs. R.P. Kapur and another (cited supra).  The applicant alleges that
non­applicant committed offence under Section 211 of Indian Penal
Code by giving false statement and the applicant was arrested and
produced before Court.  Thus, the proceedings were taken up in Court,
before the applicant filed the complaint.  Therefore, the bar created by
Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure will be attracted
and the learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the
complaint praying that the accused be convicted for the offence under
Section   211   of   the   Indian   Penal   Code,   on   the   complaint   of   the
applicant.   The order passed by the Sessions Court on this aspect is
proper and does not require any interference.

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.162 OF 2012
Shri Harishchandra s/o Nagorao Mohod,


VERSUS
Shri Kishor s/o Vitthalrao Padole,


CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.
    
DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT   : 27­-04-­2016
Citation: 2016 ALLMR(CRI)2609

Print Page

Supreme Court: Every incorrect or false statement does not make it incumbent on court to order prosecution

The essential ingredient of an offence under s. 211 I.P.C. is to institute or cause to be instituted any criminal proceeding against a person with intent to cause him injury or with similar intent to falsely charge any person with having committed an offence, knowing that there is no just or lawful ground for such proceeding or charge. Instituting or causing to institute false criminal proceedings resume false charge but false charge may be prepared even when no criminal proceedings result. In the present case, the appellant had not instituted any criminal proceedings against anybody; neither did he 'falsely charge' anybody. Giving false evidence against an accused person during the course of a criminal trial, may appropriately amount to an offence under Ss. 193, I.P.C.; but the statement in order to constitute the "charges" under sec. 211, I.P.C. should be made either in a complaint or in a report of a cognisable offence to a competent police officer with the intention of setting the criminal law in motion. Therefore, under the circumstances, no offence under s. 211, I.P.C. can be 'considered to have been committed. [64D] (ii)In view of the appellant's statement that he did not see lzhar amongst the assailants, it was not possible to understand how it could be expedient in the interest of justice to direct the appellant's prosecution. Every incorrect or false statement does not make it incumbent on the court to order prosecution. The court has to exercise judicial discretion in the light of all the relevant circumstances when it determines the question of expediency. The court orders prosecution in the larger interest of the administration of justice and not to gratify feelings of personal revenge.

Supreme Court of India

Santokh Singh vs Izhar Hussain And Anr on 25 April, 1973

Equivalent citations: 1973 AIR 2190, 1974 SCR (1) 78

Bench: Dua, I.D.

Print Page