SANTOKH SINGH versus IZHAR HUSSAIN AND ANR.

Citation: [1974] 1 S.C.R. 78 · Decided: 25-04-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: I.D. DUA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

SANTOKH SINGH 
v. 
IZHAR HUSSAIN AND ANR. 
April 25, 1973 
(K. K. MATHEW AND l. D. DUA, JJ.] 
Indian Penal Code, s. 211-lts scope. 
Pursuant to an F.l.R. the respondent, 1 and few others were tried before the 
Addi. District Magistrate for offences under Ss. 147, 323/149 and 325/ 149, 
l.P.C. 
The A.D.M. acquitted all the accused. Respondent Izhar, one of the accused 
was implicated and wrongly identified, although he was not one of the assailants 
.present at the place of occurrence. 
Later, respondent Izhar filed a petition before the A.D.M. under Ss. 476/479 
.Cr. P.C. praying that the appellant, one K and the sub~Inspector of Police. be 
prose:uted for the offence under Ss. 211/193 I.P.C. because the S.I. in collusion 
with K had submitted a wrong charge sheet whereas K had lodged a false re-
port at the instance of one H and also these three persons had intentionally given 
false evidence during petitioner's trial and fabricated false evidence. 
The Magistrate rejected the application of the respondent following the case 
of Shabir Hussain Bholu v. State of Maharashtra, A.l.R. 1963 S.C. 816. 
The 
Sessions Court also dismissed the appeal. 
On a revision u/s. 435/439 Cr.P.C., 
the High Court recorded its opinion that it was a fit case in which the complaint 
.under s. 211, I.P.C. should be filed against the persons responsible for Izhar's 
false prosecution and directed accordingly. 
According to the respondents, when the appellant stated in the witness box 
that he had seen Izhar with others in 'marpit' and thereafter in the identification 
parade in the jail he· h~d made a false charge against Izhar, therefore, he was 
liable to ~e prosecuted under s. 211 I.P.C. 
Allowing the appeal. 
HELD: (i) The essential ingredient of an offence ur.der s. 211 I.P.C. is to 
institute or cause to be instituted auy 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 resume false charge but false charge may be prepared even when no 
criminal proceedings result. In the present case, the appellant had not instituted 
any cri:......inal proceedings against anybody; neither did he 'falsely charge' any-
body. 
Giving false evidence against an accused person during the course of a 
criminal trial, may appropriately amount to an offence under Ss. 193, I.P.C.; 
but the statement in order to constitute the "charges" under sec. 211, I.P.C. 
should be made either in a complaint or ·in a report of a cognisable offence to a 
competent police officer with the intention of setting the criminal law in motion. 
Therefore, under the circumstances, no offence under s. 211, I.P.C. can be con-
tddere<l to have been committed. 
[64D} 
(ii) In view of the appellant's statement that he did not see Izhar amongst 
the assailants, it was not possible to understand how it could be 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 circums-
tances when it determines the question of expediency. 
The court orders prose-
cution in the larger interest of the administration of justice and not to gratify 
feelings of personal revenge. 
[65D-EJ 
(iii) Identification at test parades could by no stretch of imagination, be ccn-
, sidered to amount io a false charge against the respondent Izhar as conten.1-
plated by s. 211 1.P .C. 
Such identification is not substantive evidence and it 
can only be used as corroborative of the statemen.~ in court_. f65El 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
SANTOKH SINGH V. I~ HUSSAIN (Dua J.) 
79 
(iv) It is doubtful if the High Court had at all jurisdiction to make an order 
of complaint because it was neither the court which tried the original offences 
nor a court to which the trial court was subordinate. 
The High Court. instead 
of directing the prosecution of the appellant, could have quashed the orders of 
the two courts belo\v and send the case back to the trial court for reconsideration 
of the matter in ac~-ordance with law. 
[65H] 
Ku/dip Singh v. State of Punjab, [1956] S.C.R. 125 and Haridas v, State of 
West Bengal, [1964] 7 S.C.R. 237, referred to. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTIO
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.