Brief Case laws under IPC On pertaining false information

CASE BRIEFS ON SECTION 182 IPC

Brief Case laws On pertaining false information

CASE: Shikha Kondal vs State Of Punjab on 6th February 2020

Facts:

The petitioner had lodged FIR against Sukhdev Singh on the allegations that he abused her, tried to rape her and caused her several injuries while she was alone in her shop. However, on enquiry it was found that the petitioner was making false allegations as a revenge – Sukhdev’s sister had made false allegations against the petitioner’s father. Assistant Superintendent of Police recommended cancellation of FIR and a complaint against the petitioner under Section 182 of the IPC was filed.

Issue: 

Whether the complaint against the petitioner be quashed?

Rule Applied:

Section 182 IPC :

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—

(a) 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

(b) 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. Illustrations

(a) A informs a Magistrate that Z, a police-officer, subordinate to such Magistrate, has been guilty of neglect of duty or miscon­duct, knowing such information to be false, and knowing it to be likely that the information will cause the Magistrate to dismiss Z. A has committed the offence defined in this section.

(b) A falsely informs a public servant that Z has contraband salt in a secret place knowing such information to be false, and knowing that it is likely that the consequence of the information will be a search of Z’s premises, attended with annoyance to Z. A has committed the offence defined in this section.

(c) A falsely informs a policeman that he has been assaulted and robbed in the neighbourhood of a particular village. He does not mention the name of any person as one of his assistants, but knows it to be likely that in consequence of this information the police will make enquiries and institute searches in the village to the annoyance of the villages or some of them. A has committed an offence under this section.]

Application of rule:

On enquiry, Assistant Superintendent of Police, Tehsil Mukerian found that complainant Shikha Kondal had stopped the accused while going on the road and slapped him and subsequently by self suffering the scratches and making false allegations of molestation lodged false case against the accused at the behest of her father-Lekh Raj on account of earlier incident where sister of accused Sukhdev Singh had levelled allegations against the father of the petitioner. The court said that final decision is in the hands of the court and allowing the complainant to procced with proceedings against the accused on the basis of false claims would be unjust.

Observation:

The High court observed that it is the date for starting limitation when the investigating agency concludes the investigation and finds the averments in the complaint are false. The acceptance of cancellation report will not extend the time. Therefore, the complaint filed against the petitioner is barred by limitation.

Judgement:The court held that permitting the respondents to proceed with the proceedings under Section 182 of the IPC would amount to pre-judging the complaint filed by the petitioner and would amount to abuse of process of law and it would be proper, to secure the ends of justice, to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. All subsequent proceedings arising therefrom were illegal and would constitute an abuse of process of the Court. The complaint was quashed and petition was allowed.

CASE: State of Rajasthan vs Madan Singh on 30 November, 1982 (1982 WLN UC 354)

Facts:

The accused had filed a FIR against Shanti Devi who along-with other person unlawfully entered the premises of the accused and abused him and threw stones at him. Upon investigation, the allegations made by the accused about burling abuses by Shanti Devi and thereby intentionally insulting him with an intent to provoke breach of peace was proved, and so proceedings under Section 182 I.P.C. could not be taken against the accused. The Judicial Magistrate acquitted the accused in respect of an offence under Section 182 I.P.C.

Issue:

Whether the respondent was rightly acquitted?

Rule Applied:

Section 182 IPC :

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—

(a) 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

(b) 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. Illustrations

(a) A informs a Magistrate that Z, a police-officer, subordinate to such Magistrate, has been guilty of neglect of duty or miscon­duct, knowing such information to be false, and knowing it to be likely that the information will cause the Magistrate to dismiss Z. A has committed the offence defined in this section.

(b) A falsely informs a public servant that Z has contraband salt in a secret place knowing such information to be false, and knowing that it is likely that the consequence of the information will be a search of Z’s premises, attended with annoyance to Z. A has committed the offence defined in this section.

(c) A falsely informs a policeman that he has been assaulted and robbed in the neighbourhood of a particular village. He does not mention the name of any person as one of his assistants, but knows it to be likely that in consequence of this information the police will make enquiries and institute searches in the village to the annoyance of the villages or some of them. A has committed an offence under this section.]

Application of rule:

There was no material on the record of the case to show that after the final report was filed by the S.H.O., any further evidence or material had come to his knowledge or became available to him, which could have led him to file a complaint against Madansingh in respect of the offence under Section 182 IPC. In the absence of any further evidence or material coming to the notice or knowledge of the public officer concerned, there was apparently no reason for him to change the view expressed by him in the final report submitted by him to the Court that action could not be initiated against Madansingh in respect of an offence under Section 182 IPC as part of the allegations made by him in his F.I.R. were found to be prima facie substantiated upon investigation. 

Observation :

The court said that the offence could have fallen either under Section 182 or under Section 211 IPC. The accused could not have been acquitted merely on the ground that the concerned Court did not file a complaint under Section 211 I.P.C. The police officer was not empowered to change his views in respect of the very same facts as often as might have suited him and thus keep the concerned persons under constant threat of criminal proceedings being initiated against them. No reason had been disclosed for the apparent change of the view of the police officer concerned

Judgement:

The court said that the mere fact that another officer had taken charge of the Police Station was hardly a ground for change of opinion. The court held that the initiation of proceedings by the same public authority was without any justification. The order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate was upheld and the appeal was dismissed.

CASE: State of Rajasthan vs Bala Prasad on 22nd January, 1952 (AIR 1952 Raj 142)

Facts: 

Bala Prasad sent an application to the Deputy Inspector General of Police. Bikaner, in April 1950, in which he said that certain persons had murdered an old woman for her money and had thrown her body in a tank and had spread a false rumour that she had left the village. The Dy. Inspector General of Police forwarded this application to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Gersar, who investigated the matter and came to the conclusion that the information given by Bala Prasad was false and was given with the intention of putting the persons named in the application to harassment. Thereupon, a complaint under Section 182 IPC was filed against Bala Prasad in the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate (North) Bikaner. 

Issues

Whether the complaint in this case should have been made by the Dy. Inspector General of Police?

Rule Applied:

Section 182 IPC :

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—

(a) 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

(b) 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. Illustrations

(a) A informs a Magistrate that Z, a police-officer, subordinate to such Magistrate, has been guilty of neglect of duty or miscon­duct, knowing such information to be false, and knowing it to be likely that the information will cause the Magistrate to dismiss Z. A has committed the offence defined in this section.

(b) A falsely informs a public servant that Z has contraband salt in a secret place knowing such information to be false, and knowing that it is likely that the consequence of the information will be a search of Z’s premises, attended with annoyance to Z. A has committed the offence defined in this section.

(c) A falsely informs a policeman that he has been assaulted and robbed in the neighbourhood of a particular village. He does not mention the name of any person as one of his assistants, but knows it to be likely that in consequence of this information the police will make enquiries and institute searches in the village to the annoyance of the villages or some of them. A has committed an offence under this section.]

Application of rule:

The High court pointed out that the view of the Magistrate, that the facts of this case make out a case under Section 211 IPC and, therefore, there could have been no prosecution under Section 182 IPC was incorrect. It may be that on the facts, a case of falsely charging the persons named in the application for murder might be made out and Bala Prasad might have been prosecuted under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code. But these very facts also make out a case of giving false information to a public servant with in-tent to use the lawful power of such person to the injury or annoyance of any person. The Magistrate was, therefore, not right in acquitting Bala Prasad on the ground that he should have been prosecuted under Section 211, and not under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code.

Observation:

No Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishably under Section 172 to 188 IPC of the Indian Penal Code, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned, or of some other public servant to whom he is subordinate.

Judgement:

The complaint under Section 182 IPC has to be made either by the public servant to whom information has been given, or by some other public servant to whom he is subordinate. The public servant concerned under Section 195(1)(a) of the Criminal P. C. is the public servant to whom the information is given. In this case, it was the Deputy Inspector General of Police and. therefore, the complaint should have been made by the Dy. I.G.P., Bikaner, or some officer to whom he was subordinate.

CASE: Sharda Devi vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 26th September, 2017 (CRM-M No.3423/ 2015)

Facts

Prayer in this petition is for quashing the kalendra bearing DD No.6 dated 28.03.2015 filed under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and for quashing the summoning order dated 06.06.2015 along with all subsequent proceedings arising there from. The petitioner filed a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Karnal on 05.07.2012 ,the son of the petitioner namely Arjun was given merciless beating and his legs were broken and he was bed ridden. Thereafter, 1 of 8 another application dated 20.06.2013 was filed, however, no action was taken. The Superintendent of Police, Karnal issued a warning on 03.12.2012 to the SHO, Police Station Kunjpura because the complaint moved by the petitioner was marked to him, however, no case was registered. Thereafter, the FIR No.268 dated 15.11.2013 was registered against the accused persons under Sections 452, 506 read with Section 34 IPC at Police Station Kunjpura, District Karnal.

Issues:

Whether a complaint in writing as required by Section 195 had been presented by the public servant concerned?

Rules Applied:

Section 182 IPC :

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—

(a) 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

(b) 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. Illustrations

(a) A informs a Magistrate that Z, a police-officer, subordinate to such Magistrate, has been guilty of neglect of duty or miscon­duct, knowing such information to be false, and knowing it to be likely that the information will cause the Magistrate to dismiss Z. A has committed the offence defined in this section.

(b) A falsely informs a public servant that Z has contraband salt in a secret place knowing such information to be false, and knowing that it is likely that the consequence of the information will be a search of Z’s premises, attended with annoyance to Z. A has committed the offence defined in this section.

(c) A falsely informs a policeman that he has been assaulted and robbed in the neighbourhood of a particular village. He does not mention the name of any person as one of his assistants, but knows it to be likely that in consequence of this information the police will make enquiries and institute searches in the village to the annoyance of the villages or some of them. A has committed an offence under this section.]

Application of rule:

If the case under Section 182 Indian Penal Code is allowed to proceed, a decision in the said case would tantamount to pre-judging the complaint filed by the petitioner. The prosecution of the petitioner under Section 182 Indian Penal Code during the pendency of his complaint on the same facts and allegations as mentioned in the FIR, would be an abuse of the process of the Court.

Observation: 

Section 182 IPC does not require that action must always by taken if the person who moves the public servant knows of believes that action would be taken. 

Judgement:

 A perusal of the complaint as well as the FIR show that the petitioner has given a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Karnal whereas the proceedings under Section 182 IPC have been initiated by the SHO, P.S. Kunjpura. In view of the discussions made herein before, the petition is allowed, the kalendra bearing DD No.6 dated 28.03.2015 filed under Section 182 IPC and summoning order dated 06.06.2015 are ordered to be quashed along with all subsequent proceedings arising there from.

Tags:

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Newsletter Signup

Subscribe to our newsletter below and never miss the latest product or an exclusive offer.