NAGALINGAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.169 of 1981 on the file of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Thirukalukundram. The accused is the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner gave a complaint of theft against his servant, one Anbu alias Veerappan on 19.7.1980 to the Sub Inspector of Police, Tirupporur. After the investigation, the police referred the case as false and sent a final report to the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Tirukkalikundram. THE Judicial Second Class Magistrate by his order dated 31.12.1981 recorded the final report of the Sub Inspector of Police as false. THEreafter, the Sub Inspector of Police, Tirupporur filed a charge-sheet against the petitioner before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Tirukkalikundram for an offence under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code in that the petitioner gave to the Sub Inspector of Police information which he knew to be false, in order to cause him to use his lawful power to the injury or annoyance of the said Anbu alias Veerappan. THE charge-sheet has been taken on file by the Judicial Second Class Magistrate in C.C.No. 169 of 1981. THE petitioner/ accused raised a preliminary objection to the taking cognizance of the offence, but, the learned Judicial Second Class Magistrate by his order dated 3.4.1982 overruled the objection and hence this petition to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.169 of 1981 on the file of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Tirukkalikundram.

(3.) THE first question which arises for consideration is whether the offence complained of falls under Section 182 or 211 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code deals with the offence of giving false information to a public servant intending thereby such public servant to use his lawful power to injury or, annoyance of any person. Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code deals the offence of instituting or causing to be instituted any criminal proceeding against any person, or falsely charging any person for having committed an offence with intent to cause injury to any person knowing that there was no just or lawful ground for such proceeding Or charges against that person. Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code deals with a lesser offence while Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code refers to a graver offence. If the information conveyed to the police amounts to the institution of criminal proceedings against a defined person or amounts to the falsely charging of a defined person with an offence then the person giving such information is guilty of an offence under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code. In such a case, Section 211 is and Section 182 is not the proper section under which a charge has to be framed. Section 182 read with Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code must be understood as referring to cases where the information given to the public servant falls short of amounting to an institution of criminal proceedings against a defined person and falls short of amounting to the falsely charging of a defined person with an offence as defined in the Penal Code. When a person specifically complains that another man committed an offence and does so falsely with the object of causing injury to that person, he is guilty of making a false charge of an offence under Section 211 and not under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code. THE petitioner herein has given a complaint of theft of cash and other articles from his house against a defined person viz., Anbu alias Veerappan who was formerly employed under him. THE complaint having turned out to be false, the case falls under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code. Further, when a complaint sets forth certain facts disclosing a minor offence and also a graver offence the prosecution should ordinarily be for the graver offence as pointed out by this Court In re Dhollia, I.L.R. 54 Mad. 1018. I therefore hold that the prosecution in this case falls under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code.