E THIRAJ Vs. D NARAYANA SWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This 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 under Section 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 complaint has been filed under Section 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 Santhosh Singh vs. Izhar Hussain 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 :

(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 under Section 20 of the Cattle-Trespass Act." Therefore falsely charging any person with having committed an offence can be understood as meaning making a false allegation 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 stated above, the allegations are alleged to have been made in petition sent to the Honourable 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 law. 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 ! 986. He has further stated as to wherefrom did the complainant Taise 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 ever she complainant whom the petitioner has requested to cause an investigation to be launched 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.