SH. NARENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 2 S.C.R. 643 · Decided: 04-02-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
643
SH. NARENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
v.
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 211 of 2019)
FEBRUARY 04, 2019
[A. K. SIKRI AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.340 and 195 – Penal
Code, 1860 – s.193 r/w. s.34 – False Evidence – Appellant alleged
non-compliance of a High Court’s order dated 29.06.2014 by the
respondents and filed contempt petition against them – Respondents
filed a show cause showing compliance of the order dated
29.06.2014 – Accordingly, contempt proceedings were dropped –
Thereafter, appellant filed private complaint against the respondent
Nos.2 to 4 u/s. 193 r/w. s.34 of IPC alleging that respondents had
made false and wrong statement in their show-cause affidavit before
the High Court – Magistrate took cognizance of an offence
punishable u/s. 193 of IPC on basis of the private complaint –
Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 filed criminal revision petition before the
High Court against the order of the Magistrate – High Court set
aside the order of the Magistrate – On appeal, held: Supreme Court
in M.S. Ahlawat case held that private complaints are absolutely
barred in relation to an offence said to have been committed u/
s.193 of IPC and that the procedure prescribed u/s.195 of Cr.P.C.
are mandatory – Also, s.340 Cr.P.C. makes it clear that prosecution
under this section can be initiated only by the sanction of the court
under whose proceedings an offence referred to in s.195(1)(b) has
allegedly been committed – The case in hand squarely falls within
the category of cases falling u/s.195(1)(b)(i) of the Cr.P.C. as the
offence is punishable u/s. 193 of the IPC – Thus, Magistrate erred
in taking cognizance of the offence punishable u/s.193 of the IPC
on basis of a private complaint – High Court rightly set aside the
order of the Magistrate – Perjury.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. The offences under Section 195(1)(b)(i) and
Section 195(1)(b)(ii) are clearly distinct. The first category of
offences refers to offences of false evidence and offences against
public justice, whereas, the second category of offences relates
[2019] 2 S.C.R. 643
643
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
644                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2019] 2 S.C.R.
to offences in respect of a document produced or given in
evidence in a proceeding in any court. [Para 13][650-F]
2. Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. lays down a rule to be followed
by the court which is to take cognizance of an offence specified
therein but contains no direction for the guidance of the court
which desires to initiate prosecution in respect of an offence
alleged to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding
in the latter court.  For that purpose, one must turn to Section
340 which requires the court desiring to put the law in motion to
prefer a complaint either suo motu or an application made to it in
that behalf.  [Para 14][650-G; 651-A]
3. Section 340 of Cr.P.C. makes it clear that a prosecution
under this Section can be initiated only by the sanction of the
court under whose proceedings an offence referred to in Section
195(1)(b) has allegedly been committed.  The object of this Section
is to ascertain whether any offence affecting administration of
justice has been committed in relation to any document produced
or given in evidence in court during the time when the document
or evidence was in custodia legis and whether it is also expedient
in the interest of justice to take such action.  The court shall not
only consider prima facie case but also see whether it is in or
against public interest to allow a criminal proceeding to be
instituted. [Para 16][652-A-B]
4. This Court in M.S. Ahlawat case has clearly held that
private complaints are absolutely barred in relation to an offence
said to have been committed under Section 193 IPC and that the
procedure prescribed under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. are
mandatory. [Para 19][653-A]
5. The case in hand squarely falls within the category of
cases falling under Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Cr.P.C. as the
offence is punishable under Section 193 of the IPC.  Therefore,
the Magistrate has erred in taking cognizance of the offence on
the basis of a private complaint. The High Court has rightly set
aside the order of the Magistrate in the Criminal Revision petition
filed by the respondent Nos. 2 to 4.  However, having regard to
the facts and circumstances of the case, the costs imposed by the
High Court is set aside. [Paras 6 and 23][647-B; 655-B]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H

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