Team  SoOLEGAL

Section 193 IPC: Private Complaint Not Maintainable said Supreme Court

Team SoOLEGAL 6 Feb 2019 4:00pm

Section 193 IPC: Private Complaint Not Maintainable said Supreme Court

A brief of the Patna High Court’s case is as follows:

Narendra Kumar Srivastava had filed a private complaint against officials of Doordarshan and All India Radio. He alleged that an offence was committed under Section 193 read with Section 34 of the IPC. He contended that because of the false and wrong statement made by the officials in their show-cause affidavit, the High Court dropped the contempt case which was filed against this. The Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint. The petitioner filed a revision petition in the Patna High Court for setting aside the Magistrate’s order.

The question before the Supreme Court bench was that whether the Magistrate was competent to take cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 193 of the IPC on the basis of a private complaint or not.

Section 193 Indian Penal Code talks about False Evidence in Judicial Proceedings. The Supreme Court has reiterated on the issue that whether an offence under Section 193, Indian Penal Code is maintainable or not. The holding of the Court was that a private complaint in relation to the stated section is not maintainable.

The bench comprised of Justice AK Sikri and Justice S. Abdul Nazeer. It upheld the order of Patna High Court by which a Magistrate's order taking cognizance of the offence under the said provision on the basis of a private complaint was set aside. The Supreme Court stated:

"The category of offences which fall under Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Cr.P.C. refer to the offence of giving false evidence and offences against public justice which is distinctly different from those offences under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C, where a dispute could arise whether the offence of forging a document was committed outside the court or when it was in the custody of the court."

The bench referred to Section 193 Indian Penal Code, Section 195 Code of Criminal Procedure. The offences under Section 195(1)(b)(i) and Section 195(1)(b)(ii) were carefully observed and the Court came to the conclusion that they are clearly distinct. The offence under Section 195(1)(b)(i) refers to false evidence and offences against public justice, whereas, the offence under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) relate to offences in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court.

The court also mentioned that Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure contains within it no direction to guide the Court who desires to initiate prosecution in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in the latter court. The court then referred to Section 340 Code of Criminal Procedure and said:

"Section 340 of Cr.P.C. makes it clear that a prosecution under this Section can be initiated only by the sanction of the court under whose proceedings an offence referred to in Section 195(1)(b) has allegedly been committed. The object of this Section is to ascertain whether any offence affecting administration of justice has been committed in relation to any document produced or given in evidence in court during the time when the document or evidence was in custodia legis and whether it is also expedient in the interest of justice to take such action. The court shall not only consider prima facie case but also see whether it is in or against public interest to allow a criminal proceeding to be instituted."

The bench observed that Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a generic section for offences committed under Section 195(1)(b). But it has different and exclusive application to clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The petitioner relied on the case Sachida Nand Singh and Anr. v. State of Bihar and contended that it was not mandatory to obtain prior sanction for filing a private complaint under Section 193 of the IPC. The Supreme Court bench noted that the issue in the stated case was whether the bar contained in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the CrPC is applicable to a case where forgery of the document was committed before the document was produced in a court. The bench hence held that the said judgment has no application to the present case and said:

"In Sachida Nand Singh (supra), this Court had dealt with Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Cr.P.C unlike the present case which is covered by the preceding clause of the Section. The category of offences which fall under Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Cr.P.C. refer to the offence of giving false evidence and offences against public justice which is distinctly different from those offences under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C, where a dispute could arise whether the offence of forging a document was committed outside the court or when it was in the custody of the court."

Upholding the judgment of Patna High Court, the bench said that the present case precisely falls within the category of cases falling under Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Criminal Procedure Code. as the offence is punishable under Section 193 of the IPC.

 



Tagged: Section 193 IPC   Private Complaint   Not Maintainable   supreme court  
Did you find this write up useful? YES 6 NO 0
Patil Chandramouliswar reddy   7 Feb 2020 8:24pm
See chapter x of contempt of lawful authority of public Servent means police has alone complaint not by private u/s 195 (1)(a)croc for offence u/s 172 to 188 pic.
Reply
Patil Chandramouliswar reddy   7 Feb 2020 8:24pm
See chapter x of contempt of lawful authority of public Servent means police has alone complaint not by private u/s 195 (1)(a)croc for offence u/s 172 to 188 pic.
Reply
Patil Chandramouliswar reddy   7 Feb 2020 8:24pm
See chapter x of contempt of lawful authority of public Servent means police has alone complaint not by private u/s 195 (1)(a)croc for offence u/s 172 to 188 pic.
Reply
Featured Members view all

×

C2RMTo Know More

Something Awesome Is In The Work

0

DAYS

0

HOURS

0

MINUTES

0

SECONDS

Sign-up and we will notify you of our launch.
We’ll also give some discount for your effort :)

* We won’t use your email for spam, just to notify you of our launch.
×

SAARTHTo Know More

Launching Soon : SAARTH, your complete client, case, practise & document management SAAS application with direct client chat feature.

If you want to know more give us a Call at :+91 98109 29455 or Mail info@soolegal.com