DWARKA PRASAD GUPTA, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi dated June 6, 1980 acquitting the accused Madansing in respect of an offence under Section 182 I.P.C.
(2.) MADAN Singh had filed a First Information Report on May 9, 1976 in the police station, Sirohi to the effect that Shanti Devi along -with one other person unlawfully entered the premises of the complaint and hurled abuses upon h m and threw stones at aim. During investigation, the Station House Officer, Sirohi found that the relations between Shanti Devi and Madansingh were strained and proceeding under Section 107 Cr. P.C. were initiated by Shanti Devi against Madansingh which were ultimately dismissed by die court. The Police officer found on investigation that this much was proved that Shanti Davi while standing at the door hurled abuses at Madansingh and an offence under section 504 I.P.C. was made out against her but there was no reliable evidence to support the theory that Shan Devi threw stones at Madan Singh and as such the offence under Section 336 I.P.C. or under Section 448 I.P.C. was not prima facie established. The S.H.O., Sirohi, therefore, gave a final report on July 29, 1976 which was accepted by the Judicial Magistrate Sirohi on August 16, 1976. It was mentioned in the final report by the S.H.O., Sirohi that as the allegations made by Madansingh about burling abuses by Shanti Devi and thereby intentionally insulting Madan Singh with an intent to provoke breach of peace was proved, and so proceedings under Section 182 I.P.C. could not be taken against Madansingh.
(3.) A few months latter, the successor S.H.O. Sirohi filed a complaint in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi against Madansingh under Section 182 I.P.C. on the ground that Madansingh has given information which, in his view, was believed to be false and was intended by him to cause damage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause the S.H.O., Sirohi to use the lawful power of such police officer to the annoyance of Shanti Devi. The learned Magistrate registered a case under Section 182 I.P.C, but ultimately he acquitted the accused in respect of the offence on the ground that the final report having been accepted by the court, the offence was committed in respect of judicial proceedings and the complaint could have been filed only by the court and further on the ground that the S.H.O., Sirohi had clearly stated in the final report that no offence under Section 182 I P.C. was committed by Madansingh, in view of the fact that the complaint made by him was partially justified in as much as Shanti Devi had hurled abuses upon Madansingh while standing at the door of his house and as such the said police officer was not justified in filing a complaint against Madansingh in respect of an offence under Section 182 I.P.C. So far as the first ground given by the learned Magistrate is concerned, I am unable to agree with the view expressed by him. The offence alleged in the present case may fall both under Sections 182 and 211 I.P.C. A false charge may give rise to the prosecution under Section 182 I.P.C. or under Section 211 I.P.C. The expression 'falsely charges' in Section 211 I.P.C. has been interpreted by their Lordships of the Supereme Court in Santokh Singh v. Izhar Hussain and Anr. : 1973CriLJ1176 and it has been observed as under: The expression 'falsely charges' does not 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 criminal 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.;