, V ‘ H Mum: Mm IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR {CHHATTISGARHI W.P. (227) No. \OgaL Of 2011 Versus (f :: J Smt. Mamta Lalpure, Wife of Nirmal Kumar Lalpure, aged about 37 years, R/o. Q.No.982/4 N.E.Colony, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) (DECREE HOLDER) 2. Rajendra Kumar Mourya, aged about 35 years, S/o. late Nand Lal Mourya, R/ o. Shankar Nagar, Chuchuhiyapara, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) [JUDGMENT DEBTOR! WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PETITIONER :: guraj Pal Mourya, aged about {Surety} 6O years, ' S/o. late Ram Jiyawan Mourya, R/ o. Tikrapara, Juna, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BI w.P. (227) No. 1057/2011 SB:- HON’BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J PRESENT :- Shri P.P. Sahu, Advocate, for the petitioner. o RA L o RD E R * (23-3-2011) Instant petition is directed against the order dated 3~2— 2011 passed in Execution Case No. 20-A/2008 by the Additional District Judge, Bilaspur. Facts of the case in brief are that in an appeal bearing F.A. No. 192/2009 preferred by the judgment debtor, this Court vide order dated 24—9‘2010 passed an order staying execution proceeding subject to appellant’s /respondent No. 2 herein depositing a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs and furnishing security for the remaining. Pursuant to above order, on 23—10-2010 the judgment debtor produced the petitioner herein as surety who submitted affidavit and surety showing land bearing Khasra No. 165/4 and 167/ 1 in his name. The decree holder tiled an application for cancellation of surety and for punishment on the ground that in the revenue records, the land of Khasra No. 165/4 is in the name of Gulshan Lal son of Narayan Saluja and the land of Khasran No. 167/1 is in the name of Sunderial, therefore, the judgment debtor has furnished forged surety therefore, direction may be issued for registering criminal Case against the petitioner/ surety. LAspUR PETITIONER Suraj Pal Mourya Versus RESPONDENTS Smt. Mamta Lalpure and another @ 4. In reply to above application, it was stated by the judgment debtor that the land bearing Khasra No. 167/ l area 0.26 acre was by mistake recorded in the name of Sunderlal, son of Ramjeevan Mourya in the revenue records and according to B 1 of 1954 55 the land was recorded 1n the name of grand father of surety SuraJpal It was further subm1tted that the land bearlng Khasra No 165/4 area 0.02 acre 1s also by mistake recorded m the name of other person. Learned trial Court after recording evidence and making a preliminary enquiry felt it necessary to get the matter enquired into by concerned station house officer, deferred the application filed by the decree holder, directed Concerned station house officer for enquiry, for registering F.I.R. and for filing of Abhiyog Patra before the concerned Magistrate with intimation to the trial Court. Shri P.P.Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit: Civil Court has no jurisdiction to direct police fo enquiry into the alleged offence committed by the petitioner, even other Wise the order passed is contraryato the provisions contained in Section 340 of Cr.P.C. and the order impugned on the face is bad. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order impugned. On a complaint made by'the decree holder, the trial Court after making a preliminary enquiry felt necessary to get the matter enquired into by the concerned station house officer, directed concerned station house officer for its enquiry, registering of F.I.R. and filing of Abhiyog Patra before concerned Magistrat. r e As per Section 193 of Indian Penal Code Whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding, or fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. The above offence is non-cognizable bailable and triable by magistrate first class. The above section of Indian Penal Code comes under Chapter X1 and offence is an offence against public justice. Even if it is found by any person that such offence has been committed, that person is duty bound to report the matter to the police. In the facts and circumstances of the case, Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. has no application. 10. Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (henceforth ‘Cr.P.C.’) reads thus:— “1 73. Report of police ofncer on completion of investigation—(1) Every investigation under this Chapter shall be completed without unnecessary delay. - ' (2)(i) As soon as it is completed, the ojj‘icer in charge of the police station shall forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, a report in the form prescribed by the State Government, stating (a) the names of the parties; (b) the nature of the information; (c) the names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case; (d) whether any offence appears to have been committed and, ifso, by whom; (e) whether the accused has been arrested; (f) whether he has beenreleased on his bond and, if so, whether with or without sureties; (g) whether he has been forwarded in Custody under Section 1 70; (ii) The officer shall also communicate, in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government, the action taken by him to the person, if any, by whom the information relating to the commission of the Ojfence was first given. (3) Where a superior officer of police has been appointed under Section 158, the report shall, in any case in which the State Government by general or special order so directs, be submitted through that officer, and he may, pending the orders of the Magistrate, direct the officer in charge of the police station to make further investigation. (4) Whenever it appears from a report forwarded under this section that the accused has been released on his bond, the Magistrate shall make such orderfor the discharge of such bond or otherwise as he thinks fit. (5) When such report is in respect of a case to which Section 1 70 applies, the police‘officer shall forward to the Magistrate along with the report (a) all documents or relevant extracts thereof on than which those the prosecution already sent proi3 oses the to Magistrate rely other \ (b) the statements recorded under Section 161 of all the persons whom the prosecution (6) If the police officer is of opinion that any part of any such statement is not relevant to the subject— matter of the proceedings or that its disclosure to the accused is not essential in the interests ofjustice and is inexpedient in the public interest, he shall indicate that part of the statement and append a note requesting the Magistrate to exclude that part from the copies to be granted to the accused and stating his reasons for making such request. (7) Where the police officer investigating the case finds it convenient so to do, he may furnish to the accused ‘ copies of all or any of the documents referred to in sub-section (5). (8) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an Ojfence after a report under sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed; and the provisions of sub-sections (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub-section (2). " during investigation; proposes to examine as its witnesses. 11. Charge sheet, Abhiyog Patra or flnal report have not been defined in the Code. The charge sheet, Abhiyog Patra or final report whatever may be athe nomenclature, it only means a report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C‘ which has to be filed by the Police officer after completing its investigation. In the report tiled under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C., the police officers on enquiry may find no offence has been committed inasmuch as the concerned police officer has to submit report in terms of Section 173(2)(1)(d), whether any offence appears to have committed, and if so, by Whom. 12. In view of a‘bove, learned trial Court has not committed any illegality in directing concerned station house officer for enquiry, registration of F.I.R. and for filing of Abhiyag Patra. rs For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, I do not find any illegality or material irregularity in the order impugned warranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is well settled principle of law that this Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, should refrain itself frO‘m interfering with the order passed by the Court below except in such cases where perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case. l The petition being devoid of substance deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sdl- N.K. Agrawal Judge f/ @