False accusations charges of U/S 211 IPC can be made against de facto complainants & not opposite investigating officers: Madras High Court
The High Court of Madras has stated that an officer who conducts an investigation or submits a final report in accordance with the submission of criminal complaints cannot be filed under Sec 211 IPC for making false accusations to release the accused. A justice bench N. Anand Venkatesh observed that if the officer who investigated was exposed to the process in all cases where the people accused of being released, it would immediately disrupt their independence in conducting investigations.
Section 211 regarding False Accusations charges
The court explained that the language used under Section 211 regarding False Accusations charges can only relate to the Defacto complainant that determines moving criminal law, and not an investigative officer.
Observations were carried out in the criminal petition submitted by EX-DSP CBCID, challenging a call issued by the court of trial based on complaints provided by respondents based on Sec 340 CRPC. [Section 340 establishes a procedure that will be considered by a court in the cases mentioned in section 195 of CRPC which prescribes prosecution of insults on legitimate civil servant authorities, for violations of civil servants and for violations relating to the documents provided in evidence]
Background
The applicant who then the deputy supervisor of the police, CBCID was assigned the task to investigate the case against respondents here.
After release from all allegations, the respondent filed a complaint before the court under the Sec 340 CRPC against the Defacto and Applicant complainants here, with the reason they had committed a violation under the Sec 211 IPC, and the whole case was an evil prosecution on the respondents.
FIR transferred to CBCID
Challenging summons in the honorable High Court, the applicant stated that he only investigated the FIR after being transferred to CBCID and only the fact that the respondent who was released by the court would not attract violations under Sec 211 IPC. He argues that if respondents’ claims about evil prosecution are considered true, respondents can only file a lawsuit that claims damage to evil prosecution in the presence of a competent court, and it cannot be the basis for filing complaints on Section 340, CRPC.
Filing a Habeas Corpus petition
The respondent on the other hand handed over that the findings were given by the trial court clearly showed that all cases were wrong and he was deliberately defeated as accused of filing a Habeas Corpus petition questioned by the police. He further argues that the court below just calls the applicant for the initial investigation and any reason raised by the applicant in the current petition, can be raised before the court below.
Findings
Firstly, the court deals with the maintenance of instant petitions considering the submission of respondents.
The court argues that if the allegations are made in complaints of respondents, even if taken like that, do not see violations under Section 211, IPC, the applicant will not be asked to undergo trials or even the initial question before the court below.
Thus, it is held that it is important to hear this petition and test complaints to satisfy whether a violation under the Sec 211 IPC has been carried out against the applicant.
Cases for evil prosecution
The court indeed agreed with the applicant that complaints submitted by respondents at the best make cases for evil prosecution. It was held,
“In the case of evil/malicious prosecution, which raises torturing liability, only a lawsuit for damage that can be submitted by setting materials to maintain such a suit. The reason for maintaining a lawsuit for evil prosecution cannot form a base to submit a. Petition under section 340, CR. PC because it must satisfy the requirements of section 195 (1) (b), crpc “
Santokh Singh & OR. v. Izhar Hussan & Anr., (1973)
Reliance is placed in Santokh Singh & OR. v. Izhar Hussan & Anr., (1973) 2 SCC 406, where the Supreme Court states that the words “false accusations” must be read together with the expression of “criminal process institutions”, which are related to criminal initiations in process and it can never be associated with Alleged False Accusations cases framed after archiving of the final report.
Investigative officer cannot be charged for false accusations
The court argues that an investigative officer cannot be charged for false accusations based on Sec 211 IPC in the release of the defendant.
“If the officers were exposed to the process in all cases where the people accused of being released from all charges, it will immediately disrupt the independence of the authority in conducting an investigation,” observed.
In the context of this case, the bench noted that in the complaint given by one Rajamani, the FIR was registered and the arrest was made. The applicant comes to the scene only at the next time point when this False Accusations case is transferred to the CBCID file. Thus, indeed, it is not an applicant who has established a criminal law.
