Maguni Padhan vs Emperor

Adami, J.—The question to be decided by this Bench in this case has been referred by Sir Jwala Prasad, J. for decision. The question is whether when the police have reported an information given by an informant to be false in a cognizable case and have laid a complaint against that informant u/s 211, the Court is bound before issuing summons u/s 211, to call upon the informant to show cause why he should not be prosecuted. It would be well in this case to describe what happened.

A complaint was lodged against Maguni Padhan and his master and two others to the effect that they had caused injuries to two cows and one bullock and were punishable u/s 429, I.P.C. The Police were asked to inquire and they reported that the complaint made against Maguni and others were true. Thereafter Maguni went to the police and laid an information that the complainant in the other case and the others had come to his house and burnt it and had caused him severe injuries by fire.

The police investigated this second information and came to the finding that it was false. Maguni had been sent to the Assistant Surgeon to be examined and the Assistant Surgeon reported that the injuries which were alleged to be due to fire were in fact caused by sulphuric acid and the police concluded that the information was false and that it was a mere counterblast to the complaint made against him u/s 429. The police, therefore, filed a complaint u/s 211, against Maguni. When Maguni was summoned u/s 211, he moved the Sessions Judge on the ground that he should have been called upon to show cause before taking proceedings against him u/s 211. The learned Sessions Judge was inclined to agree that Maguni should have been called upon to show cause and relied on certain decisions of the Court. He therefore referred the case u/s 438, Criminal P.C., to this Court.

The Code nowhere requires that before proceedings are taken u/s 211 the person to be proceeded against must be given a chance of showing cause. As a matter of caution, many decisions of the Courts have laid down that it is wise to give an informant an opportunity of showing cause to prove that his case is true before he is prosecuted and no doubt in many cases, if not in most, the Courts would exercise a wise discretion in giving a chance to an informant of explaining matters and showing that his case is true. In most cases, if an informant is dissatisfied with the police investigation, he comes to the Court and asks that the case may be reinvestigated or makes allegations against the police. In that case, the Court is bound to take his petition as a complaint and proceed accordingly. In the present case the informant never made any protest against the manner in which the investigation was held by the police and he waited until proceedings had been taken u/s 211 before he came up.

The question is whether it was necessary in this case for the Magistrate to call upon the informant Maguni to show cause. The police report on the face of it showed that the case was a false one. It would be impossible for Maguni to explain away the fact that the injuries which he said were caused by fire were really caused by sulphuric acid. In the present case, therefore I think that there is no room for inquiring whether the Magistrate exercised a wise discretion in proceeding u/s 211. The cases which have been referred to by the learned Sessions Judge are of different nature. There was some reason for the Court to be uncertain whether the investigation had been proper or not. I agree with the opinion expressed by Sir Jwala Prasad, J. that in the present case no notice to show cause was necessary before proceedings were taken u/s 211. I would discharge the reference.

Wort, J.

I agree.