IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.2323 of 2009 ZAKRUDDIN KHAN Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 9.4.2010. Heard Sri Baidya Nath Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner seeks quashing of the proceeding initiated against him by order of cognizance passed on 10.9.2008 in G.O.Case no.83 of 2007(Tr.No.2787 of 2008) by the S.D.J.M.,Sherghati at Gaya. By the above order, the SDJM, took cognizance of offences under Sections 182 and 211 of the IPC and directed issuance of summons against the petitioner for facing trial. As may appear from the written complaint filed by the complainant, namely, Probationary Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Kothi, Gaya, the present petitioner initiated a criminal proceedings through Kothi P.S.Case No.20 of 2007 against Namo Khan, Shahanawaz Khan and Nazima Bibi under various sections of the IPC including 427 and 504 of the Penal Code. During investigation the said A.S.I. received directions from his superior police officers that the case was false and, as such, the officer should file a complaint under Sections 182 - 2 - and 211 of the IPC and, accordingly, on complaint(Annexure-4) being filed, the order of cognizance was passed on filing of Annexure-4. Sri Baidya Nath Thakur learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the provisions of Sections 182 and 211 of the IPC and has contended that there was no opinion expressed by the police officer that the information given by the present petitioner was filed knowingly or believing the same to be false and further intending thereby to cause or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause such public servant to use his lawful powers towards the injury or annoyance of any person or shall do or omit anything to be done if the true statement of facts accepting such information could be known to him. It was further contended that the complainant is a police officer and he did not state in his complaint petition that the information given by the petitioner was intended to cause injury to any person and as such the petitioner had instituted the criminal proceedings vide Kothi P.S.case no.20 of 2007 by falsely charging the accused persons of that case, knowing full well that there was no just or lawful ground for such proceedings or charge - 3 - against those accused persons. It was as such, contended that the complainant, the police officer, was merely acting upon the directions of his superior police officers and appears not applying his mind so as to forming his own opinion about the truthfulness or otherwise of the report which was lodged by the present petitioner. It was contended that the very order of taking cognizance and summoning the petitioner appears passed erroneously. Section 182 of the IPC reads as under:- “False information, with intent to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another 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— (a) 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 (b) 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. A bare perusal of the section indicates - 4 - that the report/information of a particular person must be given with the knowledge or under the belief that the information which he was likely to file before a public servant was false. Not only that such false information be intended to cause such public servant to use his lawful authority to injury or annoyance of any person. In the present case, the complainant police officer has not stated anywhere in his written report that he was of the opinion or he came to any opinion of that class that the petitioner had the knowledge and he was believing the information to be false and further that still he was filing the information before the police officer, definitely a public servant, so as to use his lawful authority for causing injury or annoyance of the accused persons. The language of section 182 I.P.C denotes that for drawing the above inference, the public servant must point out as to what was the factual basis for recording the above findings or reaching the above inference about the knowledge of the informant that the information was from prior to its very inception was false and that he knew that it was likely to cause the complainant-police officer to exercise his lawful powers to the - 5 - injury or annoyance of any other person. In fact, he appears not having drawn any conclusion in the above behalf on the basis of a particular set of facts. He has fairly indicated in his report that his superior officers had pointed out that it was a false case and that he should file a final report and initiate the prosecution of the present petitioner for committing offences under Sections 182 and 211 of the IPC. As regards the offence under Section 211 of the IPC, a glance of the provision may be useful for the present purposes. Section 211 reads as under:- False chare of offence made with intent to injure.—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; and if such criminal proceeding be instituted on a false charge of an offence - 6 - punishable with death,[imprisonment for life], or imprisonment for seven years or upwards, shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. The offence under Section 211 IPC is constituted by many ingredients, like,(1)a criminal proceeding was initiated by a person; (2) While instituting the proceedings, the person must intend to cause injury to any person and that proceedings must be based on false charges against the accused persons; (3) The person instituting the proceedings must know that there was no just or lawful ground for such proceedings or charge against the persons; The facts of the present case indicate that none of the above ingredients was constituted by the facts stated by the complainant-police officer. I have already culled out the facts of the case, while considering the provisions of the Section 182 of the IPC and the same factual data indicates that none of the ingredients constituting the offence under Section 211 of the IPC was also made out. Besides, the police officer who was initiating the - 7 - proceeding which is presently sought to be quashed, was not expressing any satisfaction about the constitution of all the ingredients of the offence either under Section 182 of the IPC or section 211 of the IPC. In the light of the above discussions, what I find is that the offences which were taken cognizance of by the S.D.J.M., Sherghati, Gaya were at all not constituted on facts alleged. It is trite law that if the facts of the case do not constitute an offence, the proceedings cannot be allowed to go ahead. One may refer to AIR 1976 SC 1927 Smt. Nagawwa Vrs Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi & Others in the above behalf. In the light of the above discussions and position of law, the order of cognizance dated 10.9.2008 is quashed. The petition is allowed. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha, J. )