LexABDUL REHMAN & ORS. versus K.M. ANEES-UL-HAQ
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1033 ABDUL REHMAN & ORS. A V. K.M. ANEES-UL-HAQ (Criminal Appeal Nos.2090-2093 of 2011) NOVEMBER 14, 2011 B [CYRIAC JOSEPH AND T'5. THAKUR, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.195 - Complaint filed by appellant before CAW cell c accusing respondent of commission of offence punishable under s. 406 read with s. 34 /PC and ss.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act - Complaint by respondent alleging that appellant had instituted criminal proceedings against him without any basis and falsely charged him with commission 0 of offences knowing that there was no just or lawful ground for such proceedings or charge and thereby committed offences punishable u/ss.211 and 500 read with s.109, 114 and 34 /PC - Maintainability of - Plea of appellant that bar of s. 195 was attracted to the complaint filed by the respondent inasmuch E as the offence allegedly committed by them was "in relation to the proceedings" in the court which the respondent had approached for grant of bail and the court concerned had granted the bail prayed for by him - Held: The bail proceedings conducted by Sessions Judge in connection with F the case which appellant had lodged with CAW Cell were judicial proceedings and the offence punishable under s.211 /PC alleged to have been committed by the appellant related to the said proceedings - Such being the case the bar contained in s.195 was attracted to complaint filed by respondent - Complaint of respondent was not, thus, G maintainable - Penal Code, 1860- ss.406 rlw s.34 - bowry Prohibition Act - ss. 3 and 4. s. 195 - Scope and ambit of - Discussed. 1033 H 1034 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A Aggrieved by the institution of criminal complaint against him by the appellant before the CAW cell under Section 406 read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the respondent filed a complaint alleging that the appellants had instituted B criminal proceedings against him without any basis and falsely charged him with commission of offences knowing that there was no just or lawful ground for such proceedings or charge and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 211 and 500 read with c Sections 109, 114 and 34 IPC. The Magistrate held that there was sufficient material to show commission of offences punishable under Sections 211 and 500 IPC. The appellant preferred a criminal revision which was dismissed as time barred. The appellant then filed a 0 petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C~ before the High Court for quashing complaint pending before the Magistrate and all proceedings consequent thereto. The High Court dismissed the said petition holding that since no judicial proceedings were pending in any court at the time when E the complaint under Sections 211 and 500 IPC was filed by the respondent-complainant, the bar contained in Section 195 Cr.P.C. was not attracted nor was there any illegality in the order passed by the Magistrate summoning the appellants to face trial. The instant appeals were filed challenging the order of the High F Court. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. A plain reading of Section 195, Cr.P.C. shows that there is a legal bar to any Court taking G cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228 when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court except on a complaint in writing, of that Court H ABDUL REHMAN & ORS. v. K.M. ANEES-UL-HAQ 1035 or by such officer of the Court as may be authorised in A that behalf, or by some other Court to which that Court is subordinate. That a complaint alleging commission of an offence punishable under Section 211 IPC, "in or in relation to any proceedings in any Court", is maintainable only at the instance of that Court or by an officer of that B Court authorized in writing for that purpose or some other Court to which that Court is subordinate, is abundantly clear from the language employed in the provision. It is common ground that the offence in the present case is not alleged to have been committed "in c any proceedings in any Court". [Para 7] [1041-C-F] 1.2. Upon the filing of the complaint by the appellants with the CAW Cell, the respondent-complainant had sought an order of anticipatory bail from the Sessions Judge and. an order granting bail was
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.