Ram Dhan v. State of U.P. and Anr.
F DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. This petition has been filed
against the judgment and order dated 14.11.2011 passed by
the Hi~Jh Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Revision
No.4259 of 2011 by which the High Court has rejected the said
revision petition against the impugned order dated 3.9.2011
G passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bagpat, rejecting the
application under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called 'Cr.P.C.').
2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this petition are
that present petitioner Ram Dhan lodged an FIR dated
H 4.6.1995 alleging that his son Dinesh had disappeared and,
RAM DHAN v. STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. 1063
[DR. S.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
subsequently, filed a complaint against Balraj alias Billu and A
others (respondents) under Section 364 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (hereinafter called IPC). The investigating agency
concluded the investigation and filed a chargesheet on the
basis of which trial commenced against the respondents Balraj
etc. and the trial Court vide judgment and order dated 11.5.2005 B
convicted the respondent No.2 Balraj and others for the
offences punishable under Section 364 read with Section 149
IPC and awarded sentence of 9 years rigorous imprisonment
and imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/-.
3. Being aggrieved, Balraj, respondent No.2 and others C
preferred an appeal before the High Court of Allahabad which
was admitted and the respondent No.2 and other convicts were
granted bail by the High Court. The petitioner's son for whose
kidnapping Balraj, respondent No.2 and others had been
convicted, came back home and disclosed to the public as well D
as to the police that he had not been kidnapped rather had
voluntarily gone to Punjab, where he worked for several years.
Balraj, respondent No.2 realised that he had been wrongly
enroped and convicted in the offence by the petitioner. Thus,
he filed an FIR on 29.8.2009 under Sections 177, 181, 182, E
195 and 420 IPC. After investigating the case, chargesheet
was filed against the petitioner and others under Sections 177,
181, 182 and 195 IPC on 23.11.2009.
· 4. The petitioner filed an application under Section 239
Cr.P.C. before the Chief Judicial Magistrate contending that the F
FIR at the behest of the respondent No.2, Balraj was not
maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 195 read with
Section 340 Cr.P.C. The Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the
said application vide order dated 3.9.2011. The petitioner
challenged the said order dated 3.9.2011 by filing a criminal G
revision before the High Court which has been dismissed vide
impugned order dated 14.11.2011. Hence, this petition.
5. Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the
prosecution of the petitioner is illegal and liable to be quashed H
A in view of the provisions of Sections 195 and 340 Cr.P.C, for
the reason that as the offence has been committed in the court,
such a drastic action can be taken against the petitioner only
on a complaint lodged by the court and not by the convict/
respondent No.2.
B 6. We find no merit in the petition. After investigation,
chargesheet has been filed against the petitioner and others
under Sections 177, 181, 182 and 195 IPC. The petitioner has
suppressed the material fact and has not disclosed anywhere
in this petition that he had approached the High Court under
C Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the chargesheet, which
stood rejected vide order dated 3.2.2010 and the said order
attained finality as has not been challenged any further .. Thus,
he is guilty of suppressing the material fact which makes the
petition liable to be dismissed only on this sole ground. We are
D of the view that it was necessary for the petitioner to disclose
such a relevant fact. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate while
deciding the application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. has made
reference to the said order of the High Court dated 3.2.2010.
We had been deprived of the opportunity to scrutinise the
E chargesheet as well as the order of the High Court dated
3.2.2010 and to ascertain as to whether the grievance of the
petitioner in respect of the application of the provisions of
Section 195 read with Section 340 Cr.P.C. had been raised
in that petition and as to whether even if such plea has not been
F taken whether the petitioner can be permitted to raise such plea
subsequently.
7. In such a fact-situation, the courts below may be right
to the extent that question of discharge under Section 239
Cr.P.C. was totally unwarranted in view of the order passed by
G the High Court on 3.2.2010. For the reasons best known to the
petitioner, neither the copy of the chargesheet nor of the order
dated 3.2.2010 passed by the High Court have been placed
on record.
H 8. Be that as it may, the chargesheet has been filed under
RAM OHAN v. STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. 1065
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
Sections 177, 181, 182, 195 and 420 IPC. Section 177 IPC A
deals with an offence furnishing false information. Section 181
IPC deals with false statement on oath. Section 182 IPC deals
with false information with intent to cause public servant to use
his lawful power to the injury of another person. Section 195
IPC deals with giving or fabricating false evidence with intent B
to procure conviction of offence punishable with imprisonment
for life or imprisonment.
9. At least the provisions of Sections 177 and 182 deal
with the cases totally outside the court. Therefore, the question
of attracting the provisions of Sections 195 and 340 Cr.P.C. C
does not arise. Section 195 IPC makes fabrication of false
evidence punishable. It is not necessary that fabrication of false
evidence takes place only inside the court as it can also be
fabricated outside the court though has been used in the court.
Therefore, it may also not attract the provisions of Section 195 D
Cr.P.C. (See: Sachida Nand Singh & Anr. v. State of Bihar &
Anr., (1998) 2 SCC 493).
10. Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner, has placed a very heavy reliance on the E
judgment of this Court in Abdul Rehman & Ors. v. K.M. Anees
ul-Haq, JT (2011) 13 SC 271. However, it is evident from the
judgment relied upon that the judgment in Sachida Nand Singh
(Supra), which is of a larger Bench, has not been brought to
the notice of the court. (See also: Ba/asubramaniam v. State
& Anr., (2002) 7 sec 649).
The petitioner is guilty of suppressing the material fact.
Admittedly, filing of successive petition before the court
amounts to abuse of the process of the court. Thus, we are not
inclined to examine the issue any further. G
Considering the composite nature of the offences, we do
not see any cogent reason to interfere with the impugned order.
The petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
B.B.B. Special Leave Petition dismissed. H