KALI SANKAR CHATTERJEE Vs. SARAT CHANDRA DEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Rule the petitioner challenges the validity of an order dated May 4, 1976, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah, whereby the learned Magistrate discharged the sole accused under S. 245(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure holding the charge to be absolutely groundless. It would be necessary to refer to certain facts in the background to appreciate the dispute now raised before this court and the challenge thrown to the validity of the impugned order.

(2.) On May 4, 1972, the accused opposite party Sarat Chandra Dey filed a verified application before the learned District Judge, Howrah, in Miscellaneous Appeal No.22/72 under Order 39 Rule 2(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure read with S. 151 thereof alleging therein that one Kali Sankar Chatterji had, in disobedience of an injunction earlier passed by that Court, removed the fencing on the suit land on April 28, 1972 at 9 a.m. along with a large number of goondas. It was claimed by Kali Sankar Chatterjee that such a statement was maliciously false and contrary to Sarat Chandra Dey's own statement made in a previous petition dated march 12, 1973 filed in Miscellaneous Case No.10/73 wherein he had clearly acknowledge that he himself had removed the fencing from the suit land. On an application made by the said Kali Sankar Chaterjee the learned District Judge held a preliminary enquiry under S. 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and on such enquiry the learned District Judge came to the conclusion that the verified statement made by the said Sarat Chandra Dey before him on May 4, 1972, was a false statement and false to the knowledge of the maker. He, therefore, directed a complaint to be lodged as against Sarat Chandra Dey for such an offence being committed.

(3.) Accordingly, the learned District Judge lodged a complaint under S. 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate on May 28, 1975. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance on consideration of the complaint so lodged under S. 199/200 of the Indian Penal Code and issued summons on the accused opposite party Sarat Chandra Dey. The accused Sarat Chandra Dey appeared and was released on bail. The case was adjourned for taking of evidence and the records of the miscellaneous cases were called for. At that stage without, however, taking any evidence the successor in office of the Chief Judicial Magistrate passed the impugned order discharging the accused under S. 245(2) of the new Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that on the petition of complaint itself the charge is absolutely groundless. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in passing the aforesaid order of discharge took the view that statements though false made in verified pleadings do not constitute an offence under Ss. 193, 199 or 200 of the Indian Penal Code or under the allied provisions of the said Code. According to him, such statements were not made on oath and they were not declarations within the meaning of Ss. 199 and 200 of the Indian Penal Code and would not be equivalent to evidence on oath as in the case of an affidavit. In this view the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that on the facts set out in the petition of complaint no case of any offence can be said to have been made out and since the complaint itself discloses no offence the charge must be held to be groundless. Thus, though the learned Magistrate did not enter into the merits and did not allow any evidence to be led in support of the charge leveled in the petition of complaint he came to the conclusion, more as a principle of law that a statement even if false when made in a verified pleading would not constitute any offence under Ss. 193, 199 and 200 of the Indian Penal Code or under the allied provisions of the said Code. Feeling aggrieved by this order Kali Sankar Chatterjee, the complainant has now moved this Court with the above revisional application disputing the correctness of the view taken by the learned Magistrate and consequently the validity of the order made thereon.