- (1.) THIS reference by the Sessions Judge, Merta raises for determination the following question : Whether it is open to a police officer with whom an information of the commission of an offence was lodged, to prosecute the informant under Section 182, I. P. C. (giving false information) even after the informant had filed a complaint before a Magistrate on the same facts and allegations, a complaint of Court under Section 195 (1) (b) being unnecessary. The facts and the circumstances leading to the reference are these :
(2.) AT about 8 or 9 P. M. on 1-6-1957 Ram Deo, the accused petitioner gave information to the S. H. D. Deedwana to the effect that Shri Kedarmal and Radha kishan committed a trespass into his house at Deedwana with preparation to cause hurt on 1-6-1957 at about 4 P. M. The case was. investigated by the Circle inspector, Deed-wana who submitted a final report to the learned Sub-Divisional magistrate to the effect that the report Was false and that Ram Deo may be ordered to be prosecuted under Section 211, I. P. C. The learned Sub-Divisional magistrate accepted the report but did not file a complaint under Section 211, I. P. C. Ram Deo thereafter filed a complaint before a Magistrate under Section 190, Cr. P. C. After this report the Circle Inspector Police filed a complaint against Ram Deo under Section 21. 1, I. P. C. on 5-6-1958 and the learned Magistrate framed a charge under Section 182, 1. P. C. instead of Section 211, I. P. C. Ram Deo considering that after he had filed a complaint before the Magistrate his prosecution tinder Section 211, I. P. C. or Section 182, I. P. C. was not competent except on a complaint by the Court, filed a revision in the Court of the Sessions judge, Merta praying to quash the charge. The learned Sessions Judge accepted the contention of the petitioner and has made a reference for quashing the charge.
(3.) MR. S. D. Kalla appearing for Ram Decsupported the reference. Shri N. M. Vyas appearing for the opposite party very strongly opposed the reference and contended that the question formulated above should be answered in the affirmative. He has in the first instance relied upon a decision of this Court. In The state v. Bala Pra-sad, ILR (1952) 2 Raj 44 : (AIR 1952 Raj 142), the principles laid down are: 1. That Section 182, I. P. C. applies to all offences under Section 211, I. P. C. though not vice-versa-2. If a case comes under both sections i. e. 211, I, P. C. and 182, I. P. C. , it is open to the authorities concerned to proceed under one section or the other. The facts of the case were that one Bala Prasad sent an application to the Deputy inspector General of Police, Bikaner in April, 1950 alleging that certain person had murdered an old woman for her money and thrown her into a tank. This report was found false by the Police and the Police prosecuted Bala Prasad under Section 182, I. P. C. An objection was raised that as the offence committed by Bala Prasad amounted to one under Section 211, I. P. C. prosecution under Section 182, I. P. C. was not competent. This objection was overruled by the High Court. It is nod clear whether the matter in that case became the subject-matter of proceedings in a court of law. At any rate the informant did not make any complaint before the magistrate. In the light of the facts of that case the principles laid down in that case cannot be of any assistance1 to Mr. Vyas". In that case the precise question arising in this case was neither raised nor determined. Mr. Vyas however, urged that the learned Chief Justice quoted with approval some observations from the decision of Allahabad High Court which contained the statement to the following effect: "the offence under Section 182 is complete when false information is given to a public servant by a person who believes it to be false, but who intends thereby to cause such public servant to institute criminal proceedings against a third person. " It was suggested that this indicates the learned Chief Justice's preference for the view held by the Allahabad High Court on the question. He proceeded to say that the Allahabad view is that the mere fact that subsequent proceedings in Court are taken either against the person originally charged, or against somebody else, cannot affect what was made, if it was a charge. Kashiram v. Emperor, AIR 1924 all 779 and Frag Datt Tiwari v. Emperor, AIR 1928 All 765, are being relied upon in this connection,;