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

Section 211 reads as under -

"Section 211. False charge of offence made with intent to injure.—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."

In an application filed by the Union Government seeking initiation of proceedings for perjury against the petitioners who had filed a plea in 2009 seeking independent probe into alleged extra-judicial killing of Adivasis in Chhattisgarh by security force, a Bench comprising Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and J.B. Pardiwala refrained from initiating such proceedings. In the alternative it suggested the State Government or the CBI take appropriate actions against the petitioners under Section 211 IPC and other relevant provisions of the law.

On perusal of Section 211 IPC (false charge of offence made with intent to injure) and as elucidated in Santokh Singh And Ors. v. Izhar Hussan And Anr. (1973) 2 SCC 406, the Bench pointed out the essential ingredients of the provision as under -

1. complaint must have falsely charged a person with having committed an offence;
2. complainant at the time of lodging the complaint must have had known that there is no just or lawful ground for making such a charge
3. complaint must have been filed with intention to cause inquiry to a person

Though Cr.P.C. does not define "charge" or "criminal proceedings", the Bench was of the opinion that false 'charge' in Section 211 should be construed in terms of its origin meaning and not in a restricted or technical sense. According to the Bench, it would include -

"false accusation made to any authority bound by law to investigate it or to take any steps in regard to it, such as giving information of it to the superior authorities with a view to investigation or other proceedings, and the institution of criminal proceedings includes the setting of the criminal law in motion."

It further noted -

"The words "falsely charges" have to be, read along with the expression "institution of criminal proceeding". Both these expressions, being susceptible of analogous meaning should be understood to have been used in their cognate sense. They get as it were their colour and content from each other."

Court also deals with perjury

Referring to the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and Code of Criminal Procedure dealing with false evidence, particularly, Sections 191, 192 and 193 IPC and Sections 195 and 340 Cr.P.C., the Court pointed out the two conditions which are to be satisfied before filing a complaint against a person who has adduced false affidavit or evidence before a court -

1. person has given a false affidavit in a proceeding before the court; and
2. in the opinion of the court it is expedient in the interests of justice to make an inquiry against such a person.

It noted that the affidavit being a 'evidence' within the meaning of Section 191 IPC, one swearing to a false affidavit would be guilty of perjury. However, before initiating proceedings for perjury, the concerned court ought to consider whether making the inquiry would be in the interest of justice. The concerned court is required to see whether there is evidence in support of the allegation of perjury and not whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant conviction. There ought to be a prime facie case of deliberate falsehood and the concerned court is to be satisfied that there is reasonable foundation of the charge as was held by the Apex Court in S.P. Kohli v. High Court of Punjab and Harayana and Mauthu Karuppan, Commissioner of Police, Chennai v. Parithi Ilmavazhuthi And Anr. Apart from this, as observed in Aarish Asgar Qureshi v. Fareed Ahmed Qureshi And Anr. the concerned court is also required to see if the false statement so made was deliberate and conscious and the conviction is reasonably probable or likely.

The Bench cited the judgment in Pritish v. State of Maharashtra wherein it was held by the Apex Court that even without a preliminary enquiry under Section 340 CrPC or without hearing the person against whom proceedings are to be initiated, the Court can form an opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry ought to be made when it appears to it that an offence has been committed in relation to a proceeding in that court. But, a conflicting opinion was expressed by a Co-ordinate Bench in Sharad Pawar v. Jagmohan Dalmiya. The issue had been subsequently referred to a larger bench and at present, pending adjudication.

It was further taken note of that in M.S. Sheriff And Anr. v. State of Madras And Ors., the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court had held that no expression on the guilt or innocence of persons should be made by the concerned court while passing an order under Section 340 of CrPC.

Case Name: Himanshu Kumar And Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 598

Case No. and Date:Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 103 of 2009 | 14 July 2022

Corum: Justices AM Khanwilkar and JB Pardiwala

Headnotes

Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 221 - essential ingredients for invoking Section 211, I.P.C. are that the complaint must have falsely charged a person with having committed an offence; the complainant, at the time of giving the complaint must have known that there is no just or lawful ground for making a charge against the person, this complaint must have been given with an intention to cause injury to a person. [Paragraph 90]

Indian Penal Code 1860 Section 221 - "charge" not defined under Cr.P.C. - a false "charge" in this Section must not be understood in any restricted or technical sense, but in its ordinary meaning - would include a false accusation made to any authority bound by law to investigate it or to take any steps in regard to it, such as giving information of it to the superior authorities with a view to investigation or other proceedings, and the institution of criminal proceedings includes the setting of the criminal law in motion - the expression "falsely charges" in this section, cannot mean giving false evidence as a prosecution witness against an accused person during the course of a criminal trial - "to falsely charge" must refer to the original or initial accusation putting or seeking to put in motion - the machinery of criminal investigation and not when seeking to prove the false charge by making deposition in support of the charge framed in that trial - the false charge must, therefore, be made initially to a person in authority or to someone who is in a position to get the offender punished by appropriate proceedings - in other words, it must be embodied either in a complaint or in a report of a cognizable offence to the police officer or to an officer having authority over the person against whom the allegations are made - the statement in order to constitute the "charges" should be made with the intention and object of setting criminal law in motion. [Paragraph 91 and 94]

Constitution of India - Article 32 & 226- When CBI enquiry can be directed - CBI inquiry can be directed only in rare and exceptional cases -such prayer should not be granted on mere asking - though a satisfaction of want of proper, fair, impartial and effective investigation eroding its credence and reliability is the precondition for a direction for further investigation or re- investigation, submission of the charge sheet ipso facto or the pendency of the trial can, by no means, be a prohibitive impediment - the contextual facts and the attendant circumstances have to be singularly evaluated and analyzed to decide the needfulness of further investigation or re-investigation to unravel the truth and mete out justice to the parties - one factor that courts may consider is that such transfer is "imperative" to retain "public confidence in the impartial working of the State agencies". [Paragraph 44, 47, 50] - referred -State of West Bengal and others v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal (2010) 3 SCC 571- The extraordinary power of the Constitutional Courts under Articles 32 and 226 respectively of the Constitution of India qua the issuance of directions to the CBI to conduct investigation must be exercised with great caution although no inflexible guidelines can be laid down in this regard, yet it was highlighted that such an order cannot be passed as a matter of routine or merely because the parties have levelled some allegations against the local police and can be invoked in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instill confidence in the investigation or where the incident may have national or international ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and for enforcing the fundamental rights - mere allegations against the police do not constitute a sufficient basis to transfer the investigation [Paragraph 44, 47, 50] - Referred Secretary, Minor Irrigation & Rural Engineering Services, U.P. v. Sahngoo Ram Arya & Anr. (2002) 5 SCC 521- an order directing an enquiry by the CBI should be passed only when the High Court, after considering the material on record, comes to the conclusion that such material does disclose a prima facie case calling for an investigation by the CBI or any other similar agency. [Paragraph 45] - Referred Romila Thapar v. Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 753,- the accused "does not have a say in the matter of appointment of investigating agency". [Paragraph 51, 52]

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment