RAMZANI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant in this application challenges the validity of an order passed by Sri Ram Kumar, a Magistrate, first class, Muzaffarnagar, directing a complaint to be made against him for an offence of Section 211, I. P. C. He had on 12-6-1950 filed a complaint against one Hukum Chand, Lekh-pal, for an offence of Section 218, I.P.C.; it was dismissed by a first class Magistrate, Sri Lalta Prasad, on 30-5-1951. Thereupon Hukum Chand applied to the Magistrate (Sri Lalta Prasad) for starting proceedings under Section 476, Cr. P. C. against the applicant for making a false complaint against him. The court, over which Sri Lalta Prasad presided, was abolished and the proceedings under Section 476, Cr. P. C. were transferred to another first class Magistrate, Sri Bhudeo Gupta. On 31-7-1952 Sri Bhudeo Gupta ordered a complaint to be made against the applicant for the offence of Section 211, I.P.C. committed by making the complaint against Hukum Chand falsely. The applicant filed an appeal from the order and it was allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge on 28-1-1954; the learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the order of Sri Bhudeo Gupta and remanded the case to him for further enquiry. In the meantime Sri Bhudeo Gupta's court had ceased to exist and the case was transferred to the court of another first class Magistrate, Sri Ram Kumar, who after carrying out the instructions of the learned Sessions Judge passed the impugned order directing a complaint to be made against the applicant for the same offence of Section 211, I.P.C.

(2.) The applicant challenges the order on two grounds, (1) that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to remand the case for further enquiry and that consequently the further proceedings held under Section 476, Cr. P. C. were null and void and (2) that Sri Ram Kumar could not be said to be the successor of Shri Lalta Prasad to whom the (alleged) false complaint was made by the applicant. As regards the first point the applicant stands on firm ground because in Manni Lal v. Emperor, AIR 1937 All 305, a Full Bench of this Court held that Section 476 is self-contained and defines the powers of the courts exhaustively and that a Court hearing an appeal under Section 476-B has no jurisdiction to remand the case for further enquiry by the subordinate court. The appellate Court can quash the order directing a complaint to be filed against the appellant or can maintain the order but cannot set it aside and direct the subordinate Court to make further enquiry into the matter. If it is dissatisfied with the enquiry done by the subordinate Court or considers an enquiry necessary, it should itself hold it in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and then decide whether the order should be maintained or quashed. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, therefore, acted illegally in remanding the case to Sri Bhudeo Gupta for further enquiry and all subsequent proceedings held by Sri Ram Kumar were null and void. The illegal order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not confer any jurisdiction upon Sri Ram Kumar to file a complaint.

(3.) A complaint for an offence of Section 211, I.P.C. can be made only by the Court (or some other court to which such Court is subordinate) in which the false complaint was filed by the accused; Section 195(1)(b), Cr. P. C. is clear. Here the false complaint was filed by the applicant in the court of Sri Lalta Prasad and only the court of Sri Lalta Prasad could make a complaint under Section 211, I.P.C.; the court of Sri Ram Kumar or Sri Bhudeo Gupta could not make it. The latter courts are admittedly not courts to which the courts of Sri Lalta Prasad was subordinate. What was contended on behalf of the State is that Sri Bhudeo Gupta was a successor of Sri Lalta Prasad and that Sri Ram Kumar way a successor of Sri Bhudeo Gupta, What We are strictly concerned with is not whether a certain Magistrate is a successor of another Magistrate but whether the Court making a complaint under Section 195 (1) (b) is the Court in which the false complaint was filed by the accused. If the answer is in the negative the complaint made by the former Court is not a complaint of which any cognizance of the offence can be taken. Now there is nothing whatsoever to indicate that the court of Sri Bhudeo Gupta is the same court which was presided: over by Sri Lalta Prasad previously and by Sri Kant Kumar subsequently. All the three Magistrates were first class Magistrates presiding over three courts of first class Magistrates and had no connection whatsoever with one another. There was nothing to indicate that they presided over the same court; merely because they held court in the same room or merely because they exercised the same territorial jurisdiction it could not be said that they presided over the same court. Criminal courts are created under the provisions of the Cr. P. C. There are the courts of sessions, presidency Magistrates and Magistrates of the first class, Magistrates of the second class and Magistrates of the third class, vide Section 6. Under Section 9 the State Government is required to establish a Court of Session and appoint a Judge-of such court; it may also appoint Additional Sessions Judges and Sessions Judges. The State Government is required by Section 10 to appoint a District Magistrate in every district. Under Section 12 it may appoint as many Magistrates of the first, second or thirds class as it may think fit and define the local areas-within which they may exercise all or any of the powers. Section 13 authorises it to appoint any Magistrate of the first or second class as a Sub-Divisional Magistrate.