PRABHAKAR SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings of G.O Case No. 78 of 2010 arising out of Adityapur (RIT) P.S case No. 78 of 2009, corresponding to G.R Case No. 271 of 2009 including the order dtd. 5/5/2010 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella, whereby cognizance of the offences under sec. 182 and 211 of IPC has been taken and summons has been issued against the petitioner.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 14/4/2009, the petitioner lodged an FIR being Adityapur (RIT) P.S. Case No. 78 of 2009 against unknown persons for the offences under Ss. 461/379 I.P.C. Pursuant to lodging of the FIR, the police investigated the case and finding the case to be false, submitted the final form before the concerned court below on 30/10/2009 whereupon notice was issued to the petitioner being the informant of the said case on the factory address, whereas the petitioner had given the address of his residence in the F.I.R. Thereafter on the same day, one Anand Kumar Mishra, the Investigating Officer of the said case submitted a prosecution report before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saraikella-Kharsawan for taking action against the petitioner under Ss. 182/211 I.P.C. alleging inter alia that the petitioner had given false information regarding the said occurrence leading to lodging of Adityapur (RIT) P.S. Case No. 78 of 2009. As per the service report of the notice issued to the petitioner, the factory was found closed. The case was subsequently taken up before the learned court below on 5/5/2010 and on the said date, the cognizance of the offences under Ss. 182/211 I.P.C. was taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella-Kharsawan. It would thus be evident that the petitioner has not been given opportunity for filing the protest petition against the submission of the final form by the Investigating Officer and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate while relying on the prosecution report of the Investigating Officer, mechanically took cognizance of the aforesaid offences against the petitioner. Surprisingly, summons in pursuance of order of cognizance were sent to the petitioner's residential address.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that so far as Sec. 211 I.P.C is concerned, the same provides that whoever, with intent to cause injury to any person, institutes or causes to be instituted any criminal proceeding against that person, or falsely charges any person with having committed an offence knowing that there is no just or lawful ground for such proceeding 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. Since in the present case, the FIR was lodged by the petitioner against unknown, the penal provisions of Sec. 211 I.P.C. is not attracted in the admitted facts of the case.