When Magistrate can not be asked to frame additional charge in light of bar imposed U/S 195 of IPC?

Equivalent Citation: 2006(2)ALD(Cri)58, 2006(2)ALT(Cri)268, 2006((2))ALT(Cri)268, 2006CriLJ2697

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Cri. Rev. Case No. 27 of 2004 and Cri. Revn. Petn. No. 27 of 2004

Decided On: 08.03.2006

Appellants: Dongari Venkatram
Vs.
Respondent: M. Tirpathanna S.I. of Police and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
P.S. Narayana, J.

Criminal - Additional charges - Sections 195 and 211 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Judicial Magistrate of First Class declined to frame additional charges for offences punishable under Sections 195 and 211, I.P.C. in light of bar imposed under Section 195 of Code - Hence, this Petition - Whether, trial court was justified in not framing additional charges - Held , Magistrate had taken bar imposed under Section 195 and recorded reasons in detail - Therefore, additional charges could not be framed in light of bar imposed under Section 195 of Code - Petition dismissed.

"Additional charges cannot be framed in light of bar imposed under Section 195 of Code."

1. Heard Sri J. Kanakaiah, the learned Counsel representing the petitioner and Sri B. Aga Reddy representing the respondents 1 to 6 and Public Prosecutor.

2. Sri J. Kanakaiah, the learned Counsel representing the petitioner would submit that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class Huzurnagar, Nalgonda District had not appreciated the facts and circumstances properly and declined to frame additional charges for the offences punishable under Sections 195 and 211, I.P.C. The learned Counsel also would explain the facts and circumstances in detail.

3. The petitioner is the complainant in C.C. No- 244 of 1999 and respondents 1 to 6 are the accused in the said case. It is stated that there is enmity between the petitioner and the respondents 4 to 6 in respect of their family properties. The petitioner and respondents 4 to 6 are relatives. The respondents 1 to 3 are the police officials and they are public servants. It is stated that the differences between the petitioner and the respondents 4 to 6 became serious and in this connection, they bore grudge against each other, while so, on 3-8-1999, in order to wreak vengeance against the 3rd respondent, the petitioner had assaulted the 4th respondent and outraged her modesty at Kodad. In that connection, on a private complaint of 4th respondent, police of Kodad registered a case in Cr. No. 112 of 1999 against the petitioner under Sections 354, 323, 379, 500 and 506, I.P.C. The 3rd respondent who was working as S.I. of Police, Suryapet arrested the accused at Suryapet on 16-8-1999 at 11 p.m., and handed over to respondents 1 and 2 at Kodad. The petitioner was confined wrongfully in the police station of Kodad on that night and he was beaten and a fracture was caused to his left hand. After that on 18-8-1999 at 12 noon, the petitioner was produced before the learned Magistrate and he was remanded to the judicial custody by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kodad. The petitioner was again detained in the police station of Kodad from 16-8-1999 to 18-8-1999 and he was beaten. On 18-8-1999, the petitioner was produced before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kodad and on 18-8-1999; the petitioner was remanded to the judicial custody and was ordered to be detained in Sub-Jail, Huzurnagar. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 without producing the petitioner in Sub-Jail, Huzurnagar had detained and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had taken the petitioner to a private Doctor (M. Laxmi) at Kodad and simple bandage was made to his hand on 19-8-1999 at 10-00 p.m., the accused was produced in Sub-Jail, Huzurnagar. Subsequently on the order made by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kodad, the police had arranged the medical treatment for the petitioner in Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. Several other facts also had been narrated in detail.

4. It is stated that he was released on bail and then, the petitioner filed a private complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalgonda against the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 326, 330, 343, 352, 355, 379, 500, 504 and 506, IPC. The learned Magistrate had recorded the sworn statement of he petitioner and took cognizance of the offences and the learned Magistrate also framed charges against the respondents 1 to 6 and the matter is at the trial stage. While this matter stood thus, the case against the petitioner in Cr. No. 112 of 1999 under Sections 354 and 379, IPC was proceeded with against the petitioner. The petitioner was tried by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Suryapet in S. C. No. 130 of 2000 and the petitioner was convicted. As against the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal in Crl. A. No. 230 of 2001 and the same was allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence and the said judgment was delivered by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda and the same had attained finality. At this stage, the petitioner filed Crl. M.P. No. 1603 of 2003 under Section 216 of Code of Criminal Procedure praying for the framing of additional charges against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 195 and 211 of Indian Penal Code.

5. Section 195, IPC reads as hereunder:

Whoever gives or fabricates false evidence intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, any person to be convicted of an offence which by the law for the time being in force in India is not capital, but punishable with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for a term of seven years or upwards, shall be punished as a person convicted of that offence would be liable to be punished.

6. Section 211, IPC reads as hereunder:

Whoever, with intent to cause injury to any person, institutes or causes to be instituted any criminal proceeding against that person, or falsely charges any person with having committed an offence, knowing that there is no just or lawful ground for such proceeding or charge against that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both:
and if such criminal proceeding be instituted on a false charge of an offence punishable with death (imprisonment for life), or imprisonment for seven years or upwards, shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

7. It is pertinent to note that under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, certain conditions are to be satisfied in relation to the certain offences for the Court taking cognizance of such offences.

8. Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure relevant for the present purpose reads as hereunder:

No Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely, Sections 193 - 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 - 211(both inclusive) and 228 when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court.

9. The learned Magistrate had taken the bar imposed under Section 195 referred to supra and recorded reasons in detail and came to a conclusion that the said additional charges under Sections 195 and 211, IPC cannot be framed in the light of the bar imposed under Section 195 of the Code referred to supra.

10. In the light of the reasons recorded in detail by the learned Magistrate, this Court is well satisfied that this Criminal Revision Case is devoid of merits.

11. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

Print Page