KARAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated the 28th February,1984, of the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Banswara directing a complaint to be filed against the petitioner in a court of comptent jurisdiction for the offence under Section 218 I.P.C. The events that led to9 be present order being passed by the learned Magistrate may brifly be stated thus: On August 11, 1983 one Phool Chand resident of Lohariya, Tehsil Gadhi,District Banswara, filed a complaint in the court of Judicial Magistrate Banswara, against Laxmilal, Smt. Pushpa, Mukesh and Kuria under Section 147, 454, 427 and 380 IPC for committing house breaking, damage by mischief theft and other offences at the complaint's house. The Judicial Magistrate by his order dated the 12th August, 1983, forwarded the complaint to the Station House Officer, Lohariya, for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.R.P. and the was registered as FIR case No. 91/1983 at the said Police Station. On the application of the complainant, the Superintendent of Police,Banswara by his order dated the 26th August, 1983 entrusted the investgation of the case to Karan Singh, the petitioner herein, who was then the Station House Officer Police Station Gadhi. On August 29, 1983, the petitioner during the course of investigation recorded the statement of Phool Chand, Laxmi Chand Sukhlal, Rukmichand, Sudhir, Lalsingh, Premchand and Mogi, and in these statements the witnesses supported the complainant's story. On September 7, 1983 the petitioner, by holding that the offences under Section 457, 511 and 427 IPC were made out against the accused persons sought the opinion of the Assistant Public Prosecutor. The Assistant Public prosecutor, however wanted further information. Thereafter, the petitioner, on September 19, 1983 added at the end of the statements of four witnesses, namely, Sukhlal, Sudhir, Premchand and Mogji a note to the following effect: .........[vernacular ommited text]........... Ultimately the petitioner, on January 25, 1984 submitted a Final Report to the Judicial Magistrate, Banswara, that no case was made out against the accused. In this report the petitioner also mentioned. .........[vernacular ommited text]...........

(2.) THE learned Magistrate by his order dated the 25th Jauary, 1984 by rejecting the final report, took cognizance of the offence against Laxmilal, Mukesh, Smt. Pushpa and Kuria for the offence Under Section 454, 380 and 427 IPC. The learned Magistrate further held that the petitioner had appended the note to the statements of the witnesses with the object of helping and obliging the accused. The learned Magistrate also held that the petitioner had wrongly mentioned in the report that the complainant had been informed of the result, though in fact no such information was conveyed to the complainant. In this view of the matter the learned Magistrate directed issuance of a notice to the petitioner why proceedings for fabricating false evidence be not initiated against him. On February 10, 1984 the notice was issued to the petitioner and a reply to the same was submitted by him on February 25, 1984. The learned Magistrate, by his order dated the 28th February, 1984, directed that a complaint for the offence under Section 218 IPC may be filed against the petitioner in a court of competent jurisdiction. It is against this order that the present petition has been filed by the petitioner in this Court.

(3.) TRUE the offence under Section 218 is not included in the offences referred to in clause (b) of Sub -section (1) of Section 195 and therefore, the complaint for the said offence would not be covered by the provisions of Section 340 Cr.P.C. The counsel is also right in submitting that the stage for taking cognizance under Section 344 had not reached as cognizance under this Section could be taken only at the time of the delivery of a judgment or final order disposing of the judicial -proceeding. The matter, however, does not end here and the question for consideration still is whether a complaint in respect of offences not covered by Section 340 Cr.P.C could be filed or not. My answer to this question is in the affirmative. Section 340 Cr.P.C. is not exhaustive. It embraces only those offences referred to in Section 195(1)(b) in respect of which a complaint of the court is necessary. Section 340 does not prohibit complaint being filed in respect of an offence which is not mentioned in Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. The offence under Section 218 IPC is not one referred to in Section 195, with the result the provisions of Section 340 will not be attracted and there was, therefore, no bar to the filing of a complaint in respect of an offence under Section 218 IPC.