LexRAM DHAN versus STATE OF U.P. AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 3 S.C.R. 1059 RAM OHAN V. STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 335 of 2012) APRIL 10, 2012 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN & JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.] A B Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss. 239, 195, 340, 482 - Petitioner had filed complaint against respondent No. 2 and other accused alleging that they had kidnapped the C petitioner's son - Respondent No.2 stood convicted uls. 364 rlw s. 149 of /PC - Petitioner's son came back home and disclosed that he had not been kidnapped rather he had gone out voluntarily - Respondent No. 2 alleging that he was wrongly enroped and convicted, lodged FIR against the D petitioner, whereupon chargesheet was filed against the petitioner ulss. 177, 181, 182, 195 of /PC - Petitioner filed application u/s.239 Cr.P.C. contending that FIR at the behest of respon.dent No. 2 was not maintainable in view of the provisions of s.195 rlw s.340 Cr.P.C-Application rejected by E Magistrate - Order upheld by High Court in revision - Held: The petitioner did not disclose anywhere in the instant SLP that he had approached the High Court uls.482 Cr.P. C. for quashing of the charge-sheet, which stood rejected and the said order attained finality having not been challenged any F further - Thus, he was guilty of suppressing the material fact which makes the petition liable to be dismissed only on this sole ground - Filing of successive petition before the court amounts to abuse of the process of the court - Considering the composite nature of the offences, no cogent reason for G interference by Supreme Court - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 364, 149, 177, 181, 182, 195. The petitioner filed complaint against respondent No.2 and other accused alleging that they had kidnapped 1059 H 1060 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 3 S.C.R. A the petitioner's son. Charge-sheet was filed and respondent No.2 and other accused were convicted u/s. 364 r/w s.149 of IPC and sentenced accordingly. The petitioner's son came back home and disclosed to the public as well as to the police that he had not been B kidnapped rather he had gone out voluntarily. Respondent No.2 alleging that he had wrongly been enroped, convicted, and sentenced lodged FIR against the petitioner, whereupon chargesheet was filed against the petitioner u/ss. 177, 181, 182, 195 of IPC. The C petitioner filed application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. contending that the FIR at the behest of the respondent No.2 was not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 195 read with Section 340 Cr.P.C. The Magistrate rejected the application. The petitioner filed revision D before the High Court which was dismissed. In the present petition, it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the prosecution of the petitioner was illegal and liable to be quashed in view of the provisions E of Sections 195 and 340 Cr.P.C, for the reason that as the offence has been committed in the court, such a drastic action can be taken against the petitioner only on a complaint lodged by the court and not by the convict/ respondent No.2. F Dismissing the petition, the Court HELD:1.1. The petitioner had suppressed the material fact and has not disclosed anywhere in this petition that he had approached the High Court under Section 482 G Cr.P.C. for quashing of the chargesheet, which stood rejected vide order dated 3.2.2010 and the said order attained finality having not been challenged any further. Thus, he is guilty of suppressing the material fact which makes the petition liable to be dismissed only on this sole H ground. It was necessary for the petitioner to disclose RAM OHAN v. STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. 1061 such a relevant fact. The Magistrate while deciding the A application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. has made reference to the said order of tjle High Court dated 3.2.2010. [Para 6] [1064-C-D] 1.2. The courts below may be right to the extent that 8 question of discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. was totally unwarranted in view of the order passed by the High Court on 3.2.2010. For the reasons best known to the petitioner, neither the copy of the chargesheet nor of the order dated 3.2.2010 passed by the High Court have C been placed on record. [Para 7] (1064-G] 1.3. The charge-sheet has been filed under Sections 177, 181, 182, 195 and 420 IPC. Section 177 IPC deals with an offence furnishing false information. Section 181 IPC deals with false statement on oath. Section 182 IPC
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.