TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1973 (4) TMI 125
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-9) lodged by Kartar Singh s/o Shri Lachman Singh at police station Kotwali Sub-District Nawabganj, District Barabanki on February 7, 1966, lzhar Hussain respondent and some others were tried in the court of the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Barabanki for offences under ss. 147, 323/149 and 325/149, I.P.C. Several witnesses were examined in support of the prosecution case. Santokh Singh appellant appeared as P.W.4. In his examination in chief, so far as relevant for our purpose, he had deposed on September 3, 1966 as follows :- "I had gone to the jail for identifying the accused persons. By putting his hand on Mohd, Zahir, Usman, Shahnshah, Puttan and Izhar Husain the witness stated, I had seen them in the marpit and thereafter in the identification parade in the jail-" In cross-examination, he had stated, inter alia "I did not see among the assailants the accused lzhar Hussain present in Court. I did not happen to see this boy in that night. The men of the Octroi post said to me that Anwar's son Izhar was also present among the assailants. I identified this boy in the jail at the instance of the people of the Octroi post." The Additional District....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of this Court in Kuppa Goundan and another v. M. S. P. Rajesh(A.J.R. 1966 S. C. 1863) and two other decisions of the Madras High Court. In his order, however, the learned Magistrate also made a reference to Shabir Hussain Bholu v. State of Maharashtra ( A.T.R. 1963 S. C. 816). lzhar Hussain's application was considered by the Magistrate to be misconceived in view of the decision in Shabir Hussain's case (supra) and rejected. lzhar Hussain took the matter on appeal to the court of the Sessions Judge but with no better fate. The Sessions Judge also referred to the aforesaid two decisions of this Court and observed as follows "Applying the said principle of law as laid down by their Lordships, it is obvious that the entire material was before the Court below and in spite of the fact that it arrived at the finding that the witness had perjured, it did not decide to proceed under Section 479-A, Code of Criminal Procedure. In these circumstances, it was not open to the Court below to have proceeded for perjury under Section 479-A, Code of Criminal Procedure, as prayed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, because upon the facts of the present case, out of w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lsely implicating the minor boy and for this reason, it was directed that the complaint under s. 21 1, I.P.C. be filed against the appellant for falsely charging Izhar Hussain for the offences already mentioned. 7-L 944 Sup CI/73 In this Court,- Shri Gupta has very forcefully contended that on the material on the record this direction is wholly unjustified, if not positively illegal, being based on misreading of evidence and on ,erroneous view of law. According to the submission, the appellant had neither lodged the F.I.R. nor otherwise instituted any criminal proceeding or falsely charged Izhar Hussain within the contemplation of s. 21 1, I.P.C.Besides, there is absolutely no material on the record on which theHigh Court could have formed an opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that a complaint under s. 21 1, I.P.C. should be filedagainst the appellant. Shri- Kohli on behalf of the respondents has tried to support the order of the HIgh Court and has submitted that, as observed by Madholkar, J. in Haridas v. State of West Bengal([1964] 7. C.R. 237) the words "or :falsely charges" in s. 211, I.P.C. are not restricted by the words "institutes or causes to be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of this section lays down that for the purposes of this section, a Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the court to which appeals ordinarily lie from- the appealable decrees or sentences of such former court. According to the proviso, where- appeals lie to more, than one court, the Appellate Court of inferior jurisdiction shall be the court to which such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate Section 476 which provides for procedure in cases mentioned in g. 195 so far as relevant for our purpose lays down "476. (1) When any Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court is, whether on application Procedure in cases made to it in this behalf or other mentioned in wise, of opinion that it is expedient in section 195. the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into, any offence referred to in section 195, subsection (1), clause (b) or clause (c), which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary, record a finding to that effect and make a complaint thereof in writing signed by the presiding officer of the Court, and shall forward the same to a Magistrate, of the fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itness against Izhar Hussain the appellant can be said to have charged him within the contemplation of s-211, I.P.C. If this question is answered in the affirmative, then it will have to be determined whether there is in fact a false accusation and finally whether it is expedient in the, interest of justice on the facts and circumstances of the present case to direct a complaint to be filed under s. 21 1, I.P.C. This section as its marginal note indicates renders punishable false charge of offence with intent to injure. The essential ingredient of an offence under s. 211, I.P.C. is to institute or cause, to be instituted any criminal proceeding against a' person with intent to cause him injury or with similar intent to falsely charge any person with having committed an offence, knowing that there is no just or lawful ground for such proceeding or charge. Instituting or causing to institute false criminal proceedings assume false charge but false charge may be preferred even when no criminal proceedings result. It is frankly conceded by Shri Kohli that the appellant cannot be said to have instituted any criminal proceeding against any person. So, that part of s. 211, I.P.C. is e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lants the accused Izhar Hussain present in the court. In face of this statement, there was no question of the appellant having made any accusation against lzhar Hussain in his deposition. In any event, considering the entire statement of the appellant it is not understood how it can be considered expedient in the interest of justice to direct the appellant's prosecution. Every incorrect or false statement does not make it incumbent on the court to order prosecution. The court has to exercise judicial discretion in the light of all the relevant circumstances when it determines the question of expediency. The court orders prosecution in the larger interest of the administration of justice and not to gratify feelings of personal revenge or vindictiveness or to serve the ends of a private party. Too frequent prosecutions for such offences tend to defeat its very object. It is only in glaring cases of deliberate falsehood where conviction is highly likely, that the court should direct prosecution. The High Court seems to have misunderstood the appellant's evidence and has also failed to apply its mind to the question of expediency. Reference by the High Court to identification p....