1 S.B.Criminal Misc.Petition No. 597/07 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 597/07 Smt. Manju Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of order : 23/04/2009 HON'BLE MR.H.R.PANWAR,J. Mr. Girish Sankhla for the petitioners. Mr. Ashok Prajapat, P.P. Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi on behalf of Mr. Rakesh Arora for the respondents. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 18.10.2006 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalore and order dated 8.2.2007 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalore by which the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalore took the cognizance of the offence under Section 211 IPC and issued process. During course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has confined the arguments only to the extent of order dated 8.2.2007 taking cognizance of the offence under Section 211 IPC against the petitioner. 2 S.B.Criminal Misc.Petition No. 597/07 By order dated 18.10.2006, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalore dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner against respondents No.2 to 4. From the order dated 18.10.2006 it appears that the petitioner complainant filed a complaint but due to exaggeration of the facts stated in the complaint and there had been certain contradictions in the statement of witnesses, as also that the independent witnesses from the neighbourhood have not been produced, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalore before whom the complaint was filed, dismissed the complaint. According to learned counsel for the petitioner though the petitioner failed to establish the case but that alone cannot be said to be a ground to conclude that the complaint filed by the petitioner was totally false. The complainant has reasonable belief in filing the complaint that the act complained of had taken place though in the complaint the facts have been exaggerated may be due to drafting of complaint by counsel and therefore, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has no intention to cause injury to any person or the respondents No.2 to 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision of this Court in K.G.Maheshwari and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors., 1997 Rajasthan Criminal Cases, 3 S.B.Criminal Misc.Petition No. 597/07 418, wherein the word “false charge” occurring in Section 211 IPC has been interpreted and this Court held that false charge of offence made with intent to injure, the words “false charge” occurring in Section 211 IPC must not be understood in any technical or restricted sense. They are required to be understood in the ordinary meaning of false accusation made to any authority bound by law to investigate it. The use of expression “with intent to cause injury to any person” in the opening sentence of Section 211 IPC makes it quite clear that if the accusation has not been made with that intention, and with just and lawful ground, no offence u/s 211 IPC can be said to have been committed. Keeping in view the decision of this Court referred herein above, in my view, the complaint lodged by the petitioner was on justified and lawful ground but due to exaggeration and the contradictions in the statement before the Court, the complaint came to be dismissed, that alone would not construe that the petitioner with intent to cause injury to the respondents No.2 to 4 or any other person instituted the criminal proceeding by way of filing criminal complaint on false charges. In this view of the matter, the order dated 8.2.2007 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalore taking cognizance of the offence 4 S.B.Criminal Misc.Petition No. 597/07 and issuing process cannot sustain and is liable to be set aside. Consequently, the criminal misc. petition is allowed. The order dated 8.2.2007 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalore taking cognizance of the offence and issuing process against the petitioner is set aside. (H.R.PANWAR), J. rp