# No. 223 of 2007 (State v. Mahendra &

- **Citation:** (2008) 2 ILRA 459
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2008-04-09
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Application No.6269 of 2008
- **Bench:** Vijay Kumar Verma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/no-223-of-2007-state-v-mahendra-41103
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 482complaint filed by the applicant-found
false-at the time of delivering judgmentdirection issued to the S.S.P. to lodge
FIR against applicant for offence under
Section 182 I.P.C.-held-it can be directed
only on the complaint/application by the
Public authority under whom workingeven otherwise bar created by section
195 (i) Cr.P.C.-order so for it relates to
lodging FIR-quashed.

Held: Para 6

Section 195 Cr.P.C. bars the lodging of
FIR for certain offences. According to
sub section (1) (a)(I) of section 195
Cr.P.C.
cognizance
for
the
offence
punishable under section 182 IPC can be
taken on the complaint in writing of the
public servant concerned or of some
other public servant to whom he is
administratively subordinate. In view of
this specific bar created by section 195
(1)(a)(I) Cr.P.C., the learned Sessions
Judge Rampur at the time of passing the
judgment in Session Trial No. 223 of
2007
had
no
jurisdiction
to
issue
direction to S.S.P. Rampur, to get the
FIR lodged against the informant for the
offence punishable under section 182
I.P.C.

## Text

2 All] Lekhraj V. State of U.P.
459
18. In such a fact situation, it would
be greatest injustice to those who had
secured better marks than petitioner, but
could not secure 55 percent, the plea of
the petitioner is liable to be rejected on
this ground also. The validity of the
advertisement has been challenged on
various grounds inter-alia that in the
subsequent advertisement, cut off marks
have been reduced from 55 percent to 50
percent. A notification which earlier
cannot be challenged on a ground that a
different criteria had been adopted by the
competent authority at a subsequent stage.
More so, the process of selection starts
from the issuance of the advertisement
and is to be complied with in conformity
with
the
terms
and
conditions
incorporated
therein.
If
for
certain
reasons, the cut off marks have been
reduced in subsequent advertisement,
petitioner cannot take benefit thereof.

In view of the aforesaid, writ petition
lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.04.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VIJAY KUMAR VERMA, J.

Criminal Misc. Application No.6269 of
2008

Lekhraj.

...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P.

...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Mohd. Irfan

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A.

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 482complaint filed by the applicant-found
false-at the time of delivering judgmentdirection issued to the S.S.P. to lodge
FIR against applicant for offence under
Section 182 I.P.C.-held-it can be directed
only on the complaint/application by the
Public authority under whom workingeven otherwise bar created by section
195 (i) Cr.P.C.-order so for it relates to
lodging FIR-quashed.

Held: Para 6

Section 195 Cr.P.C. bars the lodging of
FIR for certain offences. According to
sub section (1) (a)(I) of section 195
Cr.P.C.
cognizance
for
the
offence
punishable under section 182 IPC can be
taken on the complaint in writing of the
public servant concerned or of some
other public servant to whom he is
administratively subordinate. In view of
this specific bar created by section 195
(1)(a)(I) Cr.P.C., the learned Sessions
Judge Rampur at the time of passing the
judgment in Session Trial No. 223 of
2007
had
no
jurisdiction
to
issue
direction to S.S.P. Rampur, to get the
FIR lodged against the informant for the
offence punishable under section 182
I.P.C.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Viiay Kumar Verma, J.)

1. Heard Sri Mohd. Irfan learned
counsel for the applicant, learned AGA
for the State and perused record.

2. By means of this application
under section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (in short the 'Cr.P.C.'), the
applicant
has
invoked
inherent
jurisdiction of this Court, praying for
quashing of that part of the judgment
dated 20.02.2008 passed by Sri N.K. Jain,
the then Sessions Judge Rampur in S.T.
No. 223 of 2007 (State Vs. Mahendra &
others), whereby SSP Rampur has been
directed to get the FIR lodged against the
460 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
applicant for the offence punishable under
section 182 of Indian Penal Code (in short
the 'IPC') for lodging false, report against
the, accused persons at crime; No.322 of
2002 under section 307/586 IPC at P.S.
Kotwali Rampur.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the
facts leading to the filing of the
application under section 482 Cr.P.C. in
brief, are that the applicant Lekh Raj had
lodged an FIR at P.S. Kotwali, Rampur at
Crime 322/2002. After investigation of
the case, chargesheet was filed and on
committal of the case to the Court of
Session for trial S.T. No. 223 of 2007 was
registered against the accused Mahendra
and others. While passing judgment in
that Session Trial on 20.02.2008, the
learned Sessions Judge Rampur, was of
the opinion that the informant Lekh Raj
(applicant herein) had lodged false FIR
against him for the offence punishable
under section 182 I.P.C. Consequently,
SSP Rampur was directed to get the FIR
lodged against the informant for lodging
false report against the accused.

4. It is contended by learned counsel
for the applicant that at the time of
passing the judgment in session trial No.
223 of 2007, the court below could not
issue direction for lodging the FIR for the
offence punishable under section 182 IPC
against the informant and if the informant
had given false evidence during the trial,
then he could be punished either by
adopting the procedure provided under
section 344 Cr.P.C. or complaint could be
filed against him in the competent court
for giving false evidence, but FIR cannot
be lodged at this stage for the offence
punishable under section 182 IPC.

5. Having given my thoughtful
consideration, in my view, aforesaid
contention of the learned counsel for the
applicant has got force and must be
accepted. If the applicant had given false
evidence in S.T. No. 223 of 2007, it was
open to the learned trial court to initiate
proceedings under section 344 Cr.P.C. for
punishing him for giving false evidence.
In the alternative, complaint could also be
filed against the informant in the
competent
court
for
the
offences
punishable under section 193 or 211 IPC.
None of these procedures was adopted by
the learned Trial judge and at the time of
passing the impugned judgment, S.S.P.
Rampur has been directed to get the FIR
lodged against the informant (applicant
herein) for the offence punishable under
section 182 I.P.C. In my considered
opinion, the procedure adopted by the
learned Trial Court for punishing the
applicant for lodging false report by way
of lodging FIR against him is not in
accordance with law.

6. Section 195 Cr.P.C. bars the
lodging of FIR for certain offences.
According to sub section (1) (a)(I) of
section 195 Cr.P.C. cognizance for the
offence punishable under section 182 IPC
can be taken on the complaint in writing
of the public servant concerned or of
some other public servant to whom he is
administratively subordinate. In view of
this specific bar created by section 195
(1)(a)(I) Cr.P.C., the learned Sessions
Judge Rampur at the time of passing the
judgment in Session Trial No. 223 of
2007 had no jurisdiction to issue direction
to S.S.P. Rampur, to get the FIR lodged
against the informant for the offence
punishable under section 182 I.P.C.
2 All] Ranjan Mittal V. State of U.P. and others
461
7. The applicant had lodged FIR
against the accused persons at P.S.
Kotwali Rampur. The averments made by
the informant in that FIR were not found
false and after investigation charge sheet
was filed by the investigating officer in
case crime No.322 of 2002. Hence there
was no occasion for the S.H.O. P.S.
Kotwali Rampur or his superior officer to
file complaint against the informant for
the offence punishable under section 182
IPC. During trial in S.T. No. 223 of 2007,
the applicant Lekh Raj did not support
FIR version in his statement recorded as
P.W. 1 and he stated that name of the
accused persons were mentioned in the
report on the saying of village people. If
this statement was false in the opinion of
learned Trial Judge, then the informant
Lekh Raj could either be punished for
giving false evidence in the summary
proceedings under section 344 Cr.P.C. or
complaint could be filed against him in
competent
court
for
the
offence
punishable under section 193 IPC, as
lodging of FIR for this offence is barred
by section 195 (1) Cr.P.C. If the
informant (applicant) had falsely charged
the
accused
persons
with
having
committed an offence, knowing that there
is no just or lawful ground for such charge
against the accused persons, then also
complaint could be filed against the
informant/applicant
for
the
offence
punishable under section 211 IPC, as
lodging of FIR for the offence punishable
under section 211 IPC is also prohibited
by sub section (1) (b) (I) of section 195
Cr.P.C. for these offences, cognizance can
be taken on the basis of the complaint
only, as provided in section 195 Cr.P.C.
and lodging of FIR for committing these
offences is not permissible. In any case,
there was no occasion for the learned
Trial Judge at the time of passing the
judgment in S.T. No. 223 of 2007 to
direct SSP Rampur to lodge the FIR
against the informant for the offence
punishable under section 182 IPC.

8. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the challenged part of the
impugned judgment being wholly illegal
and without jurisdiction deserves to be
quashed.

9. Consequently, the application
under section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and
that part of the impugned judgment dated
20.02.2008, passed by the Sessions Judge
Rampur in S.T. No. 223 of 2007 (State
Vs.
Mahendra
&
others),
whereby
direction has been issued to SSP Rampur
to get the FIR lodged against the
informant/applicant Lekh Raj for the
offence punishable under section 182 IPC
and consequent FIR, if lodged in
pursuance of that direction, are hereby
quashed.

The Registrar General is directed to
send a copy of this order to Shri N.K.
Jain, the then Sessions Judge Rampur
(Now Sessions Judge Ghaziabad) for his
guidance in future. Application allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.04.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.RAFAT ALAM, J.
THE HON'BLE R.K. RASTOGI, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.6514 of
2007

Rajan Mittal

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents