HAR PRASAD AND ANR. versus RANVEER SINGH AND ANR.

Citation: [2008] 2 S.C.R. 724 · Decided: 12-02-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 724 
HAR PRASAD AND ANR. 
v. 
RANVEER SINGH AND ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 294 of 2008) 
FEBRUARY 12, 2008 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss.173 and 190 -
· False affidavit filed with protest petition - Sessions Judge held 
c that by reason thereof, the Magistrate could not have passed 
any order - High Court set aside the order of Sessions Judge 
- Correctness of - Held: Correct, since order passed by the 
Magistrate was in consideration of the report submitted under 
s. 173 CrPC and not relatable to the protest petition. 
D 
The Sessions Judge, in criminal revision, held that 
since a false affidavit had been filed with the protest 
. petition, the Magistrate could not have been proceeded 
in the matter and passed an order. High Court set aside 
the order of Sessions Judge holding that the order passed 
E by the Magistrate was not passed on the protest petition 
but passed on consideration of the report submitted in 
terms of s.173 of CrPC. Hence the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
F 
HELD: The factual position goes to show the order 
).- " 
passed by the Magistrate was in consideration of the 
police report and was not relatable to the protest petition. 
Hence, the view of the High Court does not suffer from 
any infirmity and no interference is called for. [Para 8] 
G [729-8, C] 
H 
Abhinandan Jha and Ors. v. Dinesh Mishra (AIR 1968 
SC 117) - referred to. 
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
724 
) 
r 
__.,r/ 
HAR PRASAD AND ANR. v. RANVEER SINGH 
725 
AND ANR. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 
.,., 
~ 
No. 294 of 2008. 
A 
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.11.2006 of the 
High Court of Allahabad in Criminal Revision No. 147 of 2001. 
Shakil Ahmed Syed for the Appellants. 
_, 
} 
Shail Kumar Dwivedi, AAG. Debasis Misra, Anuvrat 
B 
.... 
Sharma, S.N. Pandey, Vandana Mishra and Vibha Dwivedi for 
• 
the Respondents . 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
___., 
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
c 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a 
learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court allowing the 
revision filed by respondent No.1. The revision was filed 
questioning the legality of the order dated 18.11.2000 passed 
D 
.J.. 
by XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Aligarh in 
Criminal Revision No.272 of 2000 accepting the contention that 
the informant of the case got a false affidavit filed alongwith 
protest petition, and therefore no action could have been taken. 
3. Stand taken before the learned Sessions Judge was E 
that by the time the protest petition was filed the inform·ant had 
died and false affidavit with a thumb impression was filed. Since 
the informant had already died, the learned Magistrate could 
not have been proceeded in the matter. This found acceptance 
,; ~ 
by the learned Sessions Judge. The High Court by the impugned 
F 
order had held that the order was not passed on the protest 
petition and was in fact passed on consideration of the report 
submitted in terms of Section 173 of the Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C.'). 
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the G 
~ 
High Court fell in grave error by holding that the filing of false 
t 
affidavit, if any, alongwith protest petition was immaterial. 
According to him, when the learned Magistrate acted upon the 
protest petition, the view that the affidavit alongwith the protest H 
726 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 
A petition was not of any consequence, cannot be maintained. 
5. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand 
submitted that a bare reading of the order passed by learned 
Magistrate shows that the order did not have its foundation on 
the protest petition, but was relatable to the report submitted 
B under Section 173 Cr.P.C. 
~ 
6. The only question that falls for consideration is whether 
~ 
c 
D 
the order was passed by learned Magistrate on protest petition 
or on the police report. 
7. Reference may be made to a judgment of this Court in 
Abhinandan Jha and Ors. v. Dinesh Mishra (AIR 1968 SC 117) 
where it was held as follows: 
"8. It is now only necessary to refer to Section 190, occurring 
in Chapter XIV, relating to jurisdictio.n of Criminal courts in 
inquiries and trials. That section is to be found under the 
A 
heading "Conditions requisite for initiation of proceedings" 
and sub-section (1) is as follows: 
(1) Except as he

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.