SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Saloni Arora vs State of NCT of Delhi
Judge – A.K. Sikri and Abhay Manohar Sapre, JJ.
Decided on– 10th January 2017
Facts of the case
In the present case, The respondent, State of NCT of Delhi prosecuted the appellant Saloni Arora for committing the offence punishable under Section 182 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, which provides for the definition of False Information. Feeling aggrieved with this action of the State of NCT of Delhi, the appellant filed an application for discharge, asserting that the respondent did not follow the procedure contemplated under Section 195 of the Code, 1973 which is mandatory to follow to prosecute an accused of an offence punishable under Section 182 of Code, 1860.
Whether is it necessary to follow the procedure given under section 195 to prosecute an accused under Section 182 of Indian Penal Code, 1860?
After analyzing the facts of the case, the Bench of Justice A.K. Sikri and Abhay Manohar Sapre came to the conclusion that In order to prosecute an accused for an offence punishable under Section 182 of Code, 1860 it is mandatory to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 195 of the Code, 1973 else such action is rendered void ab initio. The prosecution while initiating the action against the Appellant did not take recourse to the procedure prescribed under Section 195 of the Code, 1973.
The Bench relied on the case of Daulat Ram vs State of Punjab, which held that in order to prosecute an accused of an offence punishable Under Section 182 Indian Penal Code, it is mandatory to follow the procedure prescribed Under Section 195 of the Code else such action is rendered void ab initio.
It is apposite to reproduce the law laid down by this Court in the case of Daulat Ram (supra) which reads as under:
“There is an absolute bar against the Court taking seisin of the case Under Section 182 Indian Penal Code except in the manner provided by Section 195 Code of Criminal Procedure.
Section 182 does not require that action must always be taken if the person who moves the public servant knows or believes that action would be taken. The offence Under Section 182 is complete when a person moves the public servant for action. Where a person reports to a Tehsildar to take action on averment of certain facts, believing that the Tehsildar would take some action upon it, and the facts alleged in the report are found to be false, it is incumbent, if the prosecution is to be launched, that the complaint in writing should be made by the Tehsildar, as the public servant concerned Under Section 182, and not leave it to the police to put a charge-sheet. The complaint must be in writing by the public servant concerned. The trial Under Section 182 without the Tehsildar\’s complaint in writing is, therefore, without jurisdiction ab initio.”
This case brief is prepared by Tushar Jain, student at Jagran Lakecity Bhopal
For legal opportunities and updates in the legal industry, Join our Whatsapp Group
has started this drive to aware law students and young lawyers to achieve in the field of law through strategies from the achievers themselves. Check out the interviews of achievers at our Gyan Series.
Law School Gyan:
Whom should we feature as part of our Gyan Series? Fill this Google Form Now
All efforts are made to ensure the accuracy and correctness of the information published at Legally Flawless. However, Legally Flawless shall not be responsible for any errors caused due to oversight or otherwise. The students are advised to check an opportunity themselves before applying.