E. Thiraj Vs D. Narayana Swamy and Another

@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER

N.D. Patnaik, J.@mdashThis Petition is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C. 99/90 on the file of the Vth Additional Munsif Magistrate, Chittoor. That case was instituted on a complaint filed by the respondent against the petitioner u/s 211 I.P.C. From the allegations made in the complaint it appears that the petitioner had sent a petition to the Honourable Minister for Revenue, Government of A.P. Hyderabad, against the complainant D. Narayana Swamy who is working as U.D.C. in the Office of the Assistant Director, District Survey and Land Records, Chittoor. The com plaint has been filed u/s 211 I.P.C. alleging that they are all false allegations and there is no just and lawful ground for making such a charge. Section 211 I.P.C. reads as follows:

"Whoever, with intent to cause injury to any person, institutes or causes to be instituted any criminal Proceeding against that person, or falsely charge any person with having committed an offence, knowing that there is no just or lawful ground for such proceedings or charge against that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine, or with both;"

2. So that section consists of two parts. The first part reads instituting or causing to be instituted any criminal proceedings against the person". The second part reads that falsely charging any person with having committed the offence. The Supreme Court in Santokh Singh Vs. Izhar Hussain and Another, has pointed out that "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 works, it must be embodied either in a complaint or in a report of cognizable offence to a police officer or to an officer having authority against whom the allegations are made. The statement in order to constitute the charges should be made with intention and object of setting criminal law in motion. The expression "Charge" as defined in Ramanath Aiyer''s "The law Lexicon" is as follows :

"Charge" as applied to a crime, is sometimes used in a limited sense intending the accusation of a crime which preceded a formal trial. In a fuller and more accurate sense the expression includes the responsibility for the crime."

3. The expression ''Charge with'' is applied to a crime sometimes in a limited sense intending the accusation of a crime which precedes a formal trial. In a fuller and more accurate sense the expression includes the responsibility for a crime. "Offence" as described in Section 2(n) means any act or omission made punishable by any law for the time being in force and includes any act in respect of which a complaint may be made u/s 20 of the Cattle-Trespass Act." Therefore falsely charging any person with having committed an offence can be understood as meaning making a false ailegation against a person that he has committed an act punishable under the provisions of any criminal law of the country. That may be made either to the police officer having jurisdiction or to any officer having authority over the person against whom the allegations are made. In this case as I staled above, the allegations are alleged to have been made in petition sent to the Honorable Minister for Revenue, A.P. The complainant was working as U.D.C. in the Office of the Survey and Land Records, Chittoor. The complaint reads that the allegations are made for necessary action in accordance with rules and Taw. The complaint contains several allegations about six in number. Some of them about the complainant absenting himself on several days in a month, some regarding misuse of the telephone in the office and like that. They are not offences punishable under any penal law of the country. But there is one allegation which requires to be considered and that is allegation No. 2. In that the petitioner has alleged that the complainant has constructed a building in Bangalore at a cost of about 5 lakhs and odd in his wife''s name in the year 1986. He has further stated as to where from did the complainant raise such disproportionate amounts beyond his known sources of income and alleged that it is a valid case for due investigation and institution of action as per Government Rules and whether he has represented the immovable properties in his returns as per Government Rules. The allegation in brief is that the complainant has constructed a house worth more than 5 lakhs in his wife''s name which is disproportionate to his known sources of income and requested that action may be taken according to the Government Rules. This allegation amounts to an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, because a person who owns property disproportionate to his known source of income is liable for punishment under that Act unless he is able to explain as to how he acquired that assets. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the petitioner has only raised a query as to how and from where did the respondent-complainant raise such disproportionate amount beyond his known sources of income and thereby contended that it is not a definite assertion that the complainant owned assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. But that has to be read along with the next sentence in which the petitioner has requested that it is a valid case for investigation and institution of action. Therefore, reading these two sentences together it is clear that the petitioner wanted an investigation to be conducted as to how the complainant could acquire this property worth about 5 lakhs, which according to him is disproportionate to his known sources of income. He thereby wants the criminal law to be set in motion by the concerned authorities who have got authority over the complainant whom the petitioner has requested to cause an investigation to be hunched against the complainant. Therefore, this allegation falls under the second clause of Section 211 I.P.C. i.e. charging any person with having committed an offence. The question whether it is false or true is a matter of evidence.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to some other decisions in support of his contention that mere suspicion or statement of fact should not be the basis u/s 211 I.P.C. In Shankar Lal Tiwari v. Adbul Rahman, AIR 1953 Assam 204 it was stated that mere statement or communication of suspicion cannot amount to institution of proceedings within that section. In that case the complainant stated that he suspected that his son might have been kidnapped by some persons and expressed his suspicion that some pathans who had a grudge against him may have done so. In Ganpathram Dinaram v. Rambai, AIR 1950 Nagpur 20 it was held that a statement of the accused to the police of a suspicion that the woman was involved in the crime did not amount to a charge within the meaning of Section 211 AIR 1942 100 (Oudh) it is pointed out that there is an essential difference between a mere information to the police and a definite statement to it that a certain person has committed a certain particular offence. In all these cases a mere suspicion or a statement alleging that some person could have been involved in an offence was made and therefore that was not definite information. But in the particular case on hand the petitioner who is the accused in the case has given a report to the Honourable Minister for Revenue against the complainant alleging that he has acquired property worth more than 5 lakhs in Bangalore and sought that investigation should be made as to how he could acquire that property which is disproportionate to his income. May be he did mention the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act but he sought for an investigation for that offence. Therefore as I have stated above, this allegation comes under the second part of Section 211 I.P.C. The question whether it is a false allegation or not is a matter to be gone in a trial. The learned counsel for the respondent has referred to a Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Hardeo Singh v. Hanuman Dat Narain, (1903) 26 All 244 which reads as follows :

It is said that no criminal proceedings were taken against him and that is so. But this is not necessary, inasmuch as Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code provides for a prosecution where a person falsely charges another with an offence. It is clear that Hardeo Singh did make a charge against Hanuman Dat Narain, and that the District Magistrate had ground for believing that that charge was false."

5. So, the complaint regarding the second allegation cannot be quashed.

6. As regards the other allegation in the petition, since they do not fall under any of the Penal laws of the country, they do not come u/s 211 I.P.C With the said direction, the petition is dismissed.