RAM DHANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANR.

                    [2012] 3 S.C.R. 1059


                         RAM OHAN                                A
                              V.
                 STATE OF U.P. AND ANR.
       (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 335 of 2012)
                      APRIL 10, 2012
                                                                 B
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN & JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.]

       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss. 239, 195, 340,
 482 - Petitioner had filed complaint against respondent No. 2
 and other accused alleging that they had kidnapped the          C
 petitioner's son - Respondent No.2 stood convicted uls. 364
 rlw s. 149 of /PC - Petitioner's son came back home and
 disclosed that he had not been kidnapped rather he had gone
 out voluntarily - Respondent No. 2 alleging that he was
 wrongly enroped and convicted, lodged FIR against the           D
petitioner, whereupon chargesheet was filed against the
petitioner ulss. 177, 181, 182, 195 of /PC - Petitioner filed
 application u/s.239 Cr.P.C. contending that FIR at the behest
 of respon.dent No. 2 was not maintainable in view of the
provisions of s.195 rlw s.340 Cr.P.C-Application rejected by     E
Magistrate - Order upheld by High Court in revision - Held:
 The petitioner did not disclose anywhere in the instant SLP
that he had approached the High Court uls.482 Cr.P. C. for
quashing of the charge-sheet, which stood rejected and the
said order attained finality having not been challenged any      F
further - Thus, he was guilty of suppressing the material fact
which makes the petition liable to be dismissed only on this
sole ground - Filing of successive petition before the court
amounts to abuse of the process of the court - Considering
the composite nature of the offences, no cogent reason for       G
interference by Supreme Court - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 364,
149, 177, 181, 182, 195.

    The petitioner filed complaint against respondent
No.2 and other accused alleging that they had kidnapped
                          1059                                   H
    1060   SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2012] 3 S.C.R.


A the petitioner's son. Charge-sheet was filed and
  respondent No.2 and other accused were convicted u/s.
  364 r/w s.149 of IPC and sentenced accordingly. The
  petitioner's son came back home and disclosed to the
  public as well as to the police that he had not been
B kidnapped rather he had gone out voluntarily.

      Respondent No.2 alleging that he had wrongly been
  enroped, convicted, and sentenced lodged FIR against
  the petitioner, whereupon chargesheet was filed against
  the petitioner u/ss. 177, 181, 182, 195 of IPC. The
C petitioner filed application under Section 239 Cr.P.C.
  contending that the FIR at the behest of the respondent
  No.2 was not maintainable in view of the provisions of
  Section 195 read with Section 340 Cr.P.C. The Magistrate
  rejected the application. The petitioner filed revision
D before the High Court which was dismissed.

       In the present petition, it was contended on behalf of
  the petitioner that the prosecution of the petitioner was
  illegal and liable to be quashed in view of the provisions
E of Sections 195 and 340 Cr.P.C, for the reason that as the
  offence has been committed in the court, such a drastic
  action can be taken against the petitioner only on a
  complaint lodged by the court and not by the convict/
  respondent No.2.
F      Dismissing the petition, the Court

       HELD:1.1. The petitioner had suppressed the material
  fact and has not disclosed anywhere in this petition that
  he had approached the High Court under Section 482
G Cr.P.C. for quashing of the chargesheet, which stood
  rejected vide order dated 3.2.2010 and the said order
  attained finality having not been challenged any further.
  Thus, he is guilty of suppressing the material fact which
  makes the petition liable to be dismissed only on this sole
H ground. It was necessary for the petitioner to disclose
       RAM OHAN v. STATE OF U.P. AND ANR.              1061


such a relevant fact. The Magistrate while deciding the        A
application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. has made
reference to the said order of tjle High Court dated
3.2.2010. [Para 6] [1064-C-D]

     1.2. The courts below may be right to the extent that     8
question of discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. was
totally unwarranted in view of the order passed by the
High Court on 3.2.2010. For the reasons best known to
the petitioner, neither the copy of the chargesheet nor of
the order dated 3.2.2010 passed by the High Court have         C
been placed on record. [Para 7] (1064-G]

     1.3. The charge-sheet has been filed under Sections
177, 181, 182, 195 and 420 IPC. Section 177 IPC deals with
an offence furnishing false information. Section 181 IPC
deals with false statement on oath. Section 182 IPC deals      D
with false information with intent to cause public servant
to use his lawful power to the injury of another person.
Section 195 IPC deals with giving or fabricating false
evidence with intent to procure conviction of offence
punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for      E
a term of seven years or upwards. At least the provisions
of Sections 177 and 182 deal with the cases totally
outside the court. Therefore, the question of attracting the
provisions of Sections 195 and 340 Cr.P.C. does not
arise. Section 195 IPC makes fabrication of false evidence     F
punishable. It is not necessary that fabrication of false
evidence takes place only inside the court as it can also
be fabricated outside the court though has been used in
the court. Therefore, it may also not attract the provisions
of Section 195 Cr.P.C. [Paras 8, 9] [1064-H; 1065-A-D]         G
    1.4. The petitioner is guilty of suppressing the
material fact. Admittedly, filing of successive petition
before the court amounts to abuse of the process of the
court. Thus, this Court is not inclined to examine the
issue any further. Considering the composite nature of         H
    1062    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2012] 3 S.C.R.


A the offences, there is no cogent reason to interfere with
  the impugned order. [Para 10] [1065-F-G]

        Sachida Nand Singh and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Anr.
    (1998) 2 sec 493: 1998 (1) SCR 492 - relied on.
B       Abdul Rehman and Ors. v, K.M.Anees-ul-Haq JT (2011)
    13 SC 271 and Balasubramaniam v. State of Anr. (2002) 7
    sec 649 - referred to.
                         Case Law Reference:
c       1998 (1) SCR 492            relied on           Para 9
        JT (2011) 13 SC 271         referred to          Para 10
        (2002) 1 sec 649            referred to          Para 10
D       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: SLP (Crl.) No.
    335 of 2012.
         From the Judgment & Order dated 14.11.2011 of the High
    Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Revision No. 4259
    of 2011.
E
         Ashok Kumar Sharma, Avnish Kumar Jain for the
    Petitioner.
        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
F      DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. This petition has been filed
  against the judgment and order dated 14.11.2011 passed by
  the Hi~Jh Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Revision
  No.4259 of 2011 by which the High Court has rejected the said
  revision petition against the impugned order dated 3.9.2011
G passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bagpat, rejecting the
  application under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal
  Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called 'Cr.P.C.').
       2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this petition are
  that present petitioner Ram Dhan lodged an FIR dated
H 4.6.1995 alleging that his son Dinesh had disappeared and,
       RAM DHAN v. STATE OF U.P. AND ANR.                   1063
             [DR. S.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

subsequently, filed a complaint against Balraj alias Billu and      A
others (respondents) under Section 364 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (hereinafter called IPC). The investigating agency
concluded the investigation and filed a chargesheet on the
basis of which trial commenced against the respondents Balraj
etc. and the trial Court vide judgment and order dated 11.5.2005    B
convicted the respondent No.2 Balraj and others for the
offences punishable under Section 364 read with Section 149
IPC and awarded sentence of 9 years rigorous imprisonment
and imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/-.
      3. Being aggrieved, Balraj, respondent No.2 and others        C
preferred an appeal before the High Court of Allahabad which
was admitted and the respondent No.2 and other convicts were
granted bail by the High Court. The petitioner's son for whose
kidnapping Balraj, respondent No.2 and others had been
convicted, came back home and disclosed to the public as well       D
as to the police that he had not been kidnapped rather had
voluntarily gone to Punjab, where he worked for several years.
Balraj, respondent No.2 realised that he had been wrongly
enroped and convicted in the offence by the petitioner. Thus,
he filed an FIR on 29.8.2009 under Sections 177, 181, 182,          E
195 and 420 IPC. After investigating the case, chargesheet
was filed against the petitioner and others under Sections 177,
181, 182 and 195 IPC on 23.11.2009.
    · 4. The petitioner filed an application under Section 239
Cr.P.C. before the Chief Judicial Magistrate contending that the    F
FIR at the behest of the respondent No.2, Balraj was not
maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 195 read with
Section 340 Cr.P.C. The Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the
said application vide order dated 3.9.2011. The petitioner
challenged the said order dated 3.9.2011 by filing a criminal       G
revision before the High Court which has been dismissed vide
impugned order dated 14.11.2011. Hence, this petition.
     5. Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the
prosecution of the petitioner is illegal and liable to be quashed
                                                                    H
    1064    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2012] 3 S.C.R.


A in view of the provisions of Sections 195 and 340 Cr.P.C, for
  the reason that as the offence has been committed in the court,
  such a drastic action can be taken against the petitioner only
  on a complaint lodged by the court and not by the convict/
  respondent No.2.
B         6. We find no merit in the petition. After investigation,
    chargesheet has been filed against the petitioner and others
    under Sections 177, 181, 182 and 195 IPC. The petitioner has
    suppressed the material fact and has not disclosed anywhere
    in this petition that he had approached the High Court under
C   Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the chargesheet, which
    stood rejected vide order dated 3.2.2010 and the said order
    attained finality as has not been challenged any further . Thus,
    he is guilty of suppressing the material fact which makes the
    petition liable to be dismissed only on this sole ground. We are
D   of the view that it was necessary for the petitioner to disclose
    such a relevant fact. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate while
    deciding the application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. has made
    reference to the said order of the High Court dated 3.2.2010.
    We had been deprived of the opportunity to scrutinise the
E   chargesheet as well as the order of the High Court dated
    3.2.2010 and to ascertain as to whether the grievance of the
    petitioner in respect of the application of the provisions of
    Section 195 read with Section 340 Cr.P.C. had been raised
     in that petition and as to whether even if such plea has not been
F   taken whether the petitioner can be permitted to raise such plea
     subsequently.
        7. In such a fact-situation, the courts below may be right
  to the extent that question of discharge under Section 239
  Cr.P.C. was totally unwarranted in view of the order passed by
G the High Court on 3.2.2010. For the reasons best known to the
  petitioner, neither the copy of the chargesheet nor of the order
  dated 3.2.2010 passed by the High Court have been placed
  on record.
         8. Be that as it may, the chargesheet has been filed under
H
         RAM OHAN v. STATE OF U.P. AND ANR.                 1065
               [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

Sections 177, 181, 182, 195 and 420 IPC. Section 177 IPC             A
deals with an offence furnishing false information. Section 181
IPC deals with false statement on oath. Section 182 IPC deals
with false information with intent to cause public servant to use
his lawful power to the injury of another person. Section 195
IPC deals with giving or fabricating false evidence with intent      B
to procure conviction of offence punishable with imprisonment
for life or imprisonment.
     9. At least the provisions of Sections 177 and 182 deal
with the cases totally outside the court. Therefore, the question
of attracting the provisions of Sections 195 and 340 Cr.P.C.         C
does not arise. Section 195 IPC makes fabrication of false
evidence punishable. It is not necessary that fabrication of false
evidence takes place only inside the court as it can also be
fabricated outside the court though has been used in the court.
Therefore, it may also not attract the provisions of Section 195     D
Cr.P.C. (See: Sachida Nand Singh & Anr. v. State of Bihar &
Anr., (1998) 2 SCC 493).
     10. Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner, has placed a very heavy reliance on the          E
judgment of this Court in Abdul Rehman & Ors. v. K.M. Anees-
ul-Haq, JT (2011) 13 SC 271. However, it is evident from the
judgment relied upon that the judgment in Sachida Nand Singh
(Supra), which is of a larger Bench, has not been brought to
the notice of the court. (See also: Ba/asubramaniam v. State
& Anr., (2002) 7 sec 649).                                           F

      The petitioner is guilty of suppressing the material fact.
Admittedly, filing of successive petition before the court
amounts to abuse of the process of the court. Thus, we are not
inclined to examine the issue any further.                           G
     Considering the composite nature of the offences, we do
not see any cogent reason to interfere with the impugned order.
    The petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
B.B.B.                      Special Leave Petition dismissed.        H