False Charge In Section 211 IPC Refers To Initial Accusation & Not False Depositions/Evidence Adduced During Trial

Case Title:
HIMANSHU KUMAR AND OTHERS V. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND OTHERS

Date Of Order:
JULY 14, 2022

Judges:
A.M. KHANWILKAR; J. and J.B. PARDIWALA; J.

Parties:
Petitioner: Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Adv. Ms. Sneha Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Satya Mitra, AOR
Respondent: Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG Ms. Neela Gokhale, Adv. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. B. V. Balaram Das, AOR Mr. S. C. Verma, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sumeer Sodhi, AOR Mr. Abhishek Lalwani, Adv. Mr. Shreekant NeelappaTerdal, AOR

SUBJECT

According to the Supreme Court, Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code's phrase "falsely charges" relates to the original accusation that starts the criminal investigation, not false depositions or false evidence presented during a criminal trial. The Supreme Court emphasised that statements made with the purpose to trigger criminal legislation would qualify as "charges" under the Article.

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS

1. Section 211 IPC
2. Article 32 of the Constitution of India
3. Section 195 CrPC
4. Article 226 of the Constitution of India

BRIEF FACTS

• The Union Government filed an application requesting the start of perjury proceedings against the petitioners who had submitted a complaint in 2009 demanding an impartial investigation into claims of extrajudicial killings of Adivasis in Chhattisgarh by security forces.
• They recommended that the State Government or the CBI take necessary legal action against the petitioners in accordance with Section 211 of the IPC and other pertinent laws.
• The petitioners claim that no action has been done by the police as a result of the filing of the FIRs.
• Nobody showed up to be detained. No thorough examination has been carried out. None of the eyewitnesses' statements have been recorded in full.
• In these circumstances, the writ petitioners presented the Court with the following writ petition in an effort to obtain relief from the CBI's investigation of all FIRs.
• The petitioners ask the government to compensate them for the allegedly committed atrocities and massacre.

QUESTIONS RAISED

Whether the writ petitioners have established a case for the CBI to look into the two instances.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT

• The appellant strenuously argued that the CBI should look into the alleged violent killings of tribal members.
• According to the appellant, Chhattisgarh State and Chhattisgarh even though the accused individuals in several of the cases had been recognised by eyewitnesses, police did nothing.
• Furthermore, they claimed that not a single eyewitness had been contacted in order to record his testimony. They then assert that the CBI is the sole source of hope left.
• The appellant additionally argued that two of the petitioners were unlawfully detained or disappeared by the responding police after the Writ Petition was adjourned on February 5, 2010.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT

• The writ petition was contested by the respondent.
• The respondent argued that in addition to the petition being rejected with exemplary costs, each petitioner should also be found guilty of fabricating evidence and making false statements to the court in order to obtain a conviction for a capital offence or life in prison against security force members and deter the real perpetrators of Left Wing (Naxal) terrorism.
• The respondent vehemently denied that the learned senior counsel's claim that the police were to blame for the disappearance of the two petitioners was true.

ANALYSIS BY THE COURT

• After reading Section 211 of the IPC, the Bench identified the following as the provision's key components:

1. the complaint must have falsely accused a person of having committed an offence.
2. the complainant must have known, at the time of filing the complaint, that there is no fair or legal basis for making such a claim.
3. The complaint must have been made with the intent to question a specific individual.

• The bench held the view that the term "false charge" in Section 211 should be interpreted in terms of its basic meaning and not in a restricted or technical sense, despite the fact that the Criminal Procedure Code does not define "charge" or "criminal proceedings."
• The court further stated that the phrase "institution of criminal procedure" must be read with the terms "falsely charges."
• Being capable of parallel meaning, it is reasonable to assume that both of these terms were employed in their intended context. They sort of borrow each other's content and colour.

Important Cases Cited

• Pritish v. State of Maharashtra – (Appeal (crl.) 1188 of 2001)

In the case of Pritish v. State of Maharashtra, the Apex Court determined that the court could determine that it is expedient in the interest of justice to conduct an inquiry when it appears that an offence has been committed in connection with a case pending before that court, even without conducting a preliminary investigation as required by Section 3340 CrPC or speaking with the person against whom proceedings are to be initiated.

• Sharad Pawar v. Jagmohan Dalmiya –( Criminal Appeal No. 540 of 2010)

However, a Co-ordinate Bench in Sharad Pawar v. Jagmohan Dalmiya voiced a divergent opinion. The matter is currently pending resolution after being forwarded to a larger bench.

• M.S. Sheriff And Anr. v. State of Madras AndOrs. – (1954 AIR 397, 1954 SCR 1229)

In this case, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Judge ruled that a court should not pronounce on a person's guilt or innocence when issuing an order according to Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

CONCLUSION

In light of the above explained facts, the court decided it would be in the best interest of the State of Chhattisgarh and the CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation) to take the necessary actions in line with the law as it has been described and in light of the claims made in the interim motion.

Additionally, the court made it clear that it shouldn't be restricted to just crimes under Section 211 of the IPC.

Instead, a case of criminal conspiracy or any other IPC-related offence may also come to light.

The Chhattisgarh State and CBI were given the freedom to proceed at their own discretion in light of the gravity of the situation.