Proof Of General Notification Promulgated By Public Servant Would Not Satisfy Requirement Of 'Knowledge' U/S 188 IPC: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The bench comprising Justice Rajendra Kumar Verma observed-

As already seen, a person booked under Section 188 IPC must have actual knowledge of public servant's order requiring him to do or abstain from doing some act. Acquiring or gaining of such knowledge is a pre-requisite. Any proof of general notification promulgated by a public servant would not satisfy the requirement.

Facts of the case were that the Applicant was a Deputy Manager of a Bank which had advanced loans to the Complainant/respondent to purchase vehicles. As the Complainant had turned out to be chronic defaulter, the Bank invoked the arbitration clause, and the arbitrators passed the award in favour of the Bank. Since the Bank was entitled to recover money from the Complainant, as a last resort, the Bank took possession of the vehicles with due compliance of the law.

Aggrieved, the Complainant got the FIR registered against the Applicant under Sections 188 and 372 IPC, alleging that the Bank took possession of the vehicles despite an order passed by the Collector regarding take over of the respective vehicles. Later, the charge-sheet was filed in the matter. Challenging the proceedings in the matter before the trial court, the Applicant moved the Court.

The Applicant submitted before the Court that the actions of the bank were carried out with due compliance of law. Hence, it was asserted that the offence under Section 379 IPC could not be made out against him. It was also argued that since the Applicant was not aware of the order passed by the Collector, he could not be tried for offence punishable under Section 188 IPC either. It was further pointed out that the parties have arrived upon a settlement and thus, it was prayed that the Court be pleased to set aside the proceedings relating to the FIR registered against the Applicant.

Examining the submissions of parties and documents on record, the Court found merit in the arguments put forth by the Applicant. It noted that there is nothing on record to suggest that the copy of the order passed by the Collector was served upon the Applicant or that he was cognizant of the contents of the said order. Therefore, the Court opined, since the Applicant had no knowledge of the directions of the Collector, he could not be tried for the offence punishable under Section 188 IPC-

It is true that the knowledge of accused could be presumed in certain circumstances but all the same a complaint/FIR must indicate, even though not in very express terms, that he had the knowledge of the order and had knowingly disobeyed it. Where the terms of complaint/FIR did not provide even an inkling in this regard, it cannot be said to make out or constitute an offence under Section 188 and in such a situation, it would warrant to be quashed. A bare perusal of the FIR and documents annexures with charge-sheet does not indicate that applicant has actual knowledge of Collector/ District Magistrate order. It is not the case of respondent No. 2 also that this order was served on him by whatever means/ modes or was either affixed on his premises or was gazetted on the relevant date.

Further observing that that since the offence under Section 379 IPC is compoundable and that the parties have settled the matter amongst themselves, the Court found it fit to quash the proceedings against the Applicant.

Accordingly, the application was allowed and the proceedings against the Applicant before the trial court with respect to the FIR registered against him was set aside.