Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9221 of 2011 (2) dt.21-06-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.9221 of 2011 ====================================================== Ram Sakhi Devi wife of Mishri Yadav, resident of Samnhua Dih, P.S.-Barh, District-Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. G. Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Dr. M.K.Gautam(APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 2 21-06-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. In this case, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 2.12.2010 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barh in Complaint Case No. 02GC/2010 arising out of Complaint Case No. 23(c)2009 read with Barh P.S. Case No. 30 of 2009 by which the court below took cognizance under [STATUTE] . On the material on record it appears that the petitioner has filed a complaint petition on 12.1.2009 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barh which was sent under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for instituting the Police case and for investigation. In the complaint petition it has been alleged that her daughter Shanti Kumari married to one Anil Kumar 12-13 years ago. The accused persons used to torture her for demand of extra Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9221 of 2011 (2) dt.21-06-2012 dowry and also used to expel her from the matrimonial home. In the month of September, 2008 she came back at her matrimonial home along with her children, all of a sudden in the month of December, 2008 the petitioner came to know that her daughter is not in the matrimonial home then the petitioner on 31st December, 2008 came to her matrimonial home where she did not find her daughter. After that she made an enquiry from her mother-in-law and other family members but they could not give any proper reply but from the villagers she could know that her daughter has been killed by the accused person. From the record it appears that the police investigation the matter and submitted a Final Form in favour of the accused person but at the same time recommended for initiation on proceeding under [STATUTE] against the informant and on that basis the court below has passed the impugned order. It appears from the record that on the basis of protest petition, the court has taken cognizance under the aforesaid sections against accused person. The counsel for the petitioner submits that it is very peculiar situation when the same court on the same day has taken cognizance on protest petition under [STATUTE] and the same court takes cognizance under section 182/211 of Cr. P.C. on the recommendation of the Police treating the allegation made by the petitioner false. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9221 of 2011 (2) dt.21-06-2012 The counsel for the petitioner submits that if the statement made during the enquiry is prima facie found to be correct which led to taking the cognizance against accused persons then in that circumstances there was no justification for the same court, at the same time treat allegation by the petitioner in the complaint petition to be incorrect and fabricated. Both are the inconsistent situation cannot run together. The order of cognizance under the aforesaid sections against the petitioner under [STATUTE] . who is the informant is illegal and an abuse of process of the Court. The counsel for the State has stated that submission that has been made by the counsel for the petitioner cannot be discarded. Having considered the rival contention of the parties it is very peculiar that the same court at the same time has found statement in the protest petition prima facie to be correct and has taken cognizance then at the same it cannot be declared to be untrue statement on the basis of recommendation of the Police. In this view of the matter, the order passed by the court below in Complaint Case No. 02GC/2010 dated 2.12.2010 is quashed. Mahesh/- (Shivaji Pandey, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 182

Statute Text:
Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code. Giving false information to a public servant in order to cause him to use his lawful power to the injury or annoyance of any person. Whoever gives to any public servant any information which he knows or believes to be false, intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause such public servant: to do or omit anything which such public servant ought not to do or omit if the true state of facts respecting which such information is given were known by him, or to use the lawful power of such public servant to the injury or annoyance of any person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.