RAJENDRANATH CHOUHAN Vs. RATNAKAR JAGATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner's grievance is that learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhubaneswar (in short, 'JMFC') was not justified in taking cognizance of offence punishable under Sections 211 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code. 1860 (in short, 'IPC') During trial petitioner prayed before learned JMFC in ICC Case No. 112 of 1987 to quash the cognizance so far as it relates to said offences. Learned JMFC rejected the prayer on the ground that making of such prayer was out of question at t e stage of trial.

(2.) MR . B. Sahu learned counsel for petitioner submitted that while taking cognizance of the offence under Sec 211, IPC, learned SDJM did not keep in view Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, 'the Code'). Further, according to him, ingredients necessary to constitute an offence punishable under Section 500 are squarely absent. Learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that cognizance was taken in October, 1987. There has been considerable delay in disposal of the matter due to dilatory methods adopted by the petitioner who jumped the bail and after long prolongation, he appeared and was sent to custody and was subsequently released on bail. It is stated that one witness has already been examined, and at this belated stage question relating to reconsideration of cognizance does not arise.

(3.) AS a general rule any person having knowledge of commission of an offence may set law in motion by a complaint, even though he is not personally interested or affected by the offence. But there are exceptions to this general rule, as evident from Section 195 and 196 of the Code. Section 195 is one of the sections which prohibits a Court from taking cognizance of certain offences unless and until a complaint has been made by some particular authority or person. Other sections with similar prescriptions are Sections 196 to 199 of the Code. Section 195 of the Code has been enacted as a safeguard against irresponsible and reckless prosecutions by private individuals in respect of offences which relate to the administration of justice, and contempt of lawful authority. Section 211, IPC relates to false charge of offence made with intent to cause injury. Since the accusations in the complaint related to a proceeding in a Court, the learned SDJM was not justified in taking cognizance of offence punishable under Section 211, IPC in absence of the complaint of the concerned Court, or a Court to which that Court is subordinate. The order dated 20 -10 -1987 taking cognizance in respect of offence punishable under Section 211,IPC is, therefore, vitiated.