Sudarshan Pandey vs State of U.P.

Kalimullah Khan, J.—Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

It appears that this criminal revision has been instituted by complainant/revisionist Sudarshan Pandey against the impugned order dated 7.11.2007 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. -10, Azamgarh in criminal complaint case No. 2644 of 2007 Sudarshan Pandey v. Virendra Pandey and others, under Sections 182, 211, 500 I.P.C., Police-Sidhari, District-Azamgarh.

The said criminal complaint was dismissed u/s 203 Cr.P.C. for the reasons recorded therein on the ground that the said criminal complaint was barred by Section 195 Cr.P.C.

The correctness, legality and propriety of the said impugned order has been challenged in this revision.

In nutshell, the prosecution case is that the proposed accused persons two in number had made a false application to the Chief Engineer, P.W. D, Azamgarh with an allegations against the complainant who is a junior engineer that he had gained pecuniary benefit in his salary by showing that he had only two issues from his wife but the fact is that he has four issues. Inquiry was made wherein it was detected that in fact, the complainant had four issues but he never took the pecuniary benefits in his salary from the Government on the aforesaid ground.

Section 182 I.P.C. reads as under:

"S. 182. False information, with intent to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person.--Whoever gives to any public servant any information which he knows or believes to be false, intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, such public servant--

(a) to do or omit anything which such public servant ought not to do or omit if the true state of facts respecting which such information is given were known by him, or

(b) to use the lawful power of such public servant to the injury or annoyance of any person,

shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both."

According to the provision contained u/s 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C., no Court shall take cognizance of the offence punishable u/s 182 I.P.C. except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate.

Undisputedly, the complainant of this criminal complaint is not the public servant concerned nor a public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. Likewise Section 195(1)(b)(i) Cr.P.C. further provides that no Court shall take cognizance of the offence punishable u/s 211 I.P.C. except on the complaint in writing of that Court or by such officer of the Court as that Court may authorize in writing in this behalf or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate.

Indisputably, the Chief Engineer aforesaid is not the Court.

Contents of the criminal complaint filed by the complainant make it clear that the intention of the proposed accused in moving the application with the aforesaid allegations against the complainant was to use the lawful power of Chief Engineer P.W.D., a public servant, to the injury or annoyance of the complainant Sudarshan Pandey and not to defame him.

The cognizance of the Court for the main offences punishable under Sections 182, 211 I.P.C. is barred by the provision of Section 195 Cr.P.C.

No incorrectness, illegality or impropriety has occurred in the impugned order dated 7.11.2007 dismissing the criminal complaint u/s 203 Cr.P.C. for the reasons recorded therein.

Criminal revision is devoid of merit and, therefore, it is hereby dismissed.