Skip to content


Muthuvelu Kudumburan and anr. Vs. Samiayya Kudumburan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in165Ind.Cas.292; (1936)71MLJ485
AppellantMuthuvelu Kudumburan and anr.
RespondentSamiayya Kudumburan
Excerpt:
.....entitled to disregard some of the facts and try or convict an accused person for an offence which the remaining facts disclose but the court must consider the facts as a whole and if but if all the facts are considered, it is quite clear that the motive of the village munsif and the co-accused was to induce the public servant not merely to do what he would not otherwise have done but to take the specific action of investigating the offence and prosecuting the person complained against......wife of one samiayya kudumburan died in the village of avarambatti. information was given to the village munsif of that village that the death had been due to beating by her husband. the village munsif went to the nearest police station and gave a report incorporating this information. the result of the police investigation was reported to the sub-magistrate to the effect that the complaint was not true and that the death was due to natural causes and the sub-magistrate passed orders treating the case in this light and directing its removal from the police file. then samiayya kudumburan, the husband of the deceased woman, filed a private complaint before the sub-magistrate against the village munsif and also against his informant accusing them of having given false information to the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

King, J.

1. This reference from the learned Sessions Judge of West Tanjore raises an interesting point of law. The facts are that on the 25th September, 1935, the wife of one Samiayya Kudumburan died in the village of Avarambatti. Information was given to the Village Munsif of that village that the death had been due to beating by her husband. The Village Munsif went to the nearest Police Station and gave a report incorporating this information. The result of the police investigation was reported to the Sub-Magistrate to the effect that the complaint was not true and that the death was due to natural causes and the Sub-Magistrate passed orders treating the case in this light and directing its removal from the police file. Then Samiayya Kudumburan, the husband of the deceased woman, filed a private complaint before the Sub-Magistrate against the Village Munsif and also against his informant accusing them of having given false information to the police with a view to prosecute him on a charge of murder. The complaint was taken on file by the Sub-Magistrate under Section 182, Indian Penal Code and he held an enquiry under Section 202, Criminal Procedure Code. At the conclusion of the enquiry the Magistrate filed the case, no longer under Section 182 but under S.211, Indian Penal Code. When the trial of the case was about to begin, the Village Munsif, one of the accused, took a preliminary objection that on the facts of the case the complaint disclosed an offence under Section 182 and that under Section 195, Criminal Procedure Code, no complaint could be entertained by the Magistrate of an offence under Section 182 except upon the written complaint of the Sub-Inspector of Police. The Magistrate overruled this objection but the learned Sessions Judge is of opinion that it is a valid one and has submitted the case for the orders of the High Court.

2. There is no doubt that in this case both Section 182 and Section 211 can be applied to the facts alleged in the complaint. The learned Sessions Judge considers that he is bound by the ruling in Ravanappa Reddi, In re (1931) 62 M.L.J. 735 : I.L.R. 55 Mad. 343. That is a case in which a private person made a complaint of forgery and a conviction was bad under Sections 467 and 109, Indian Penal Code. But it was found that on the facts of the complaint the intention of the person who abetted the forgery was clearly that the forged document should be used in a judicial proceeding and therefore what he did constituted also an offence under Section 193. It was held by the learned Judges who decided that easy that the provisions of Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code could not be evaded by ignoring these elements of the offence, which brought it under Section 193 and by the Court confirming its attention to the other elements of the offence which alone were necessary to prove the applicability of Section 467. It will be seen therefore on a careful analysis of this case that the principle involved is this, that when a complaint is made there must be no splitting up of the facts, and the Court is not entitled to disregard some of the facts and try or convict an accused person for an offence which the remaining facts disclose but the Court must consider the facts as a whole and if these facts disclose an offence for which a special complaint is necessary under the provisions of Section 195 a Court cannot take cognizance of the case at all unless that special complaint has been filed. It will now be clear that when the present case is examined what the learned Sessions Judge recommends should be done is the exact opposite of this procedure. There is no doubt that Section 182 which is a general section relating to false information of a general kind given with the intention of making a public servant do what he would not otherwise have done or cause injury to any other person can be made to apply to the facts of this case. But if all the facts are considered, it is quite clear that the motive of the Village Munsif and the co-accused was to induce the public servant not merely to do what he would not otherwise have done but to take the specific action of investigating the offence and prosecuting the person complained against. It is therefore clear that if the whole of the facts in this case are examined the only section which is appropriate and which must be applied is Section 211, and it would be obviously anomalous and in every respect undesirable if the law were that simply because an offence under Section 182 was also disclosed and because for the trial of such an offence a written complaint from a public servant is necessary the Court should be debarred from enquiring into the real nature of the offence which comes within Section 211. In the present case it is quite clear that a complaint under Section 211 can be made by a private person. If we therefore follow the principle of Ravanappa Reddi, In re (1931) 62 M.L.J. 735 : I.L.R. 55 Mad. 343, it leads us to this position, that in this case the Court must regard this complaint as being one under Section 211 privately, and, as I have just said, it cannot be prevented from trying the case under Section 211 because the Sub-Inspector has not filed a written complaint of the minor offence under Section 182. I am accordingly of opinion that the order of the learned Magistrate refusing to accept the preliminary objection of the Village Munsif in this case was right. The records will be returned to him and he is directed to proceed with the trial of the case under Section 211, Indian Penal Code and dispose of it according to law.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //