Munna Lal Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

Munna Lal vs State of U.P. and ors.

Disposition Writ petition allowed Court Allahabad Decided Sep 06, 2002

~5 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/490424

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/490424
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: U.S. Tripathi, J.
Decided On: Sep 06, 2002
Case Number: C.M.W.P. No. 4910 of 2002
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Writ petition allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 [C.A. No. 1/1894]. Section 4; [Sushil Harkauli, S.K. Singh & Krishna Murari, JJ] Acquisition of land Held, Court cannot issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the State Authorities to acquire a particular land. Land acquisition is not purely ministerial act to be performed by executive No...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Writ petition allowed
Acts & sections: Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 182; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 173

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Munna Lal

Advocate S.K. Mishra, Adv.

Respondent

State of U.P. and ors.

Advocate A.G.A.

Legal References

Acts: Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 182; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 173
Reported In: 2004CriLJ1527

Excerpt

.....be open to the court in exercise of that power to invite the attention of the executive to any public purpose and the need for land for meeting that public purpose and to require the executive to take a decision, even a reasoned decision, with regard to the same in accordance with the statutory provisions, perhaps even within a reasonable time frame. however, the power of the court under article 226 must necessarily stop at that. thereafter, if the decision taken by the executive is capable of challenge and, there exist appropriate legal grounds for such challenge, it may also be open to the court to quash the decision and to require reconsideration. but no direction in the nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by the court under article 226 to the executive to necessarily acquire a particular area of a particular piece of land for a particular public purpose. section 4; compulsory acquisition of land powers of state government held, renewal of lease in favour of petitioners would not take away power of state government of compulsory acquisition of land. renewal of lease would at best be taken into consideration for determining quantum of compensation. - in case he is again satisfied that there is sufficient evidence and reasonable ground to initiate proceeding under section 182, i......the above orders have been challenged in this petition.5. the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner was that no notice was givento the petitioner before initiating the proceeding under section 182, i.p.c. this colitention, in fact, has no force. offence punishable under section 182, i.p.c. is made out against the person whoever gives to any public servant any information which he knows or believes to be false, intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, such public servant--(a) to do or omit anything which such public servant ought not to do or omit if the true state of facts respecting which such information is given were known by him, or(b) to use the lawful power of such public servant to the injury or annoyance of any person.6. it appears that the investigating officer while submitting report under section 169, cr.p.c. for release of the accused of the case was of the view that the petitioner had lodged false report. it is not clear from the order of the magistrate that the investigating officer has submitted final report in the case as required under section 173, cr.p.c. or not. only on submission of final report it could be ascertained whether the report lodged by the petitioner was false or there was any sufficient evidence to submit charge-sheet against the accused of the case. unless that stage had come the magistrate had no sufficient ground to form an opinion that the petitioner had lodged false report and committed an offence punishable under section 182, i. p. c. in fact, this proceeding, if necessary ought to have been started after submission and acceptance of final report. there would have been also a possibility that on submission of final report the petitioner was given notice and he would have filed protest petition and the learned magistrate would have rejected the final report. in that situation it could not be said that the report lodged by the petitioner was false. therefore,.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

U.S. Tripathi, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A. G. A.

2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the order dated 9-7-2002 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi directing the Station Officer, P. S. Gurusarai, District Jhansi to initiate a proceeding under Section 182, I.P.C. against the petitioner and the order of the Revisional Court dated 20-7-2002 dismissing the revision of the petitioner.

3. The petitioner lodged a report against Smt. Savitri Devi, Halkey Ram, Akhilesh Ram and Kusuma Devi in-laws of his daughter Laxmi Devi with the allegation that marriage of Laxmi Devi was performed on 4-12-1998 with Shiv Kumar S/o Ram Sahai. After the marriage her in-laws started demand of dowry of Rs. 50,000/- and on refusal to pay the above dowry they started treating his daughter with cruelty. Thereafter, they also committed her dowry death on 20-6-2002 by burning her. On the above report a case at Crime No. 273 of 2002, under Section 498A, 304B, I.P.C. and Section 3/4, Dowry Prohibition Act was registered against the accused of the said case. During investigation the accused of the case namely Halkey Ram, Kushuma Devi and Akhilesh Ram were arrested by the police and were sent to judicial custody till 9-7-2002. On 9-7-2002 the Investigating Officer of the case submitted report under Section 169, Cr.P.C. that there was no sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the accused for further judicial custody. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate accepted the above report and released the above accused on filing of personal bonds of Rs. 5.000/- each and also directed the S.O. concerned to initiate a proceeding under Section 182, I.P.C. against the petitioner. The petitioner filed revision against the said order dated 9-7-2002. The Revisional Court held that the report under Section 169, Cr.P.C. was accepted by the learned Magistrate and final report was submitted under Section 173, Cr.P.C. and there is no requirement of giving any notice to the petitioner before initiating proceeding un der Section 182, I.P.C. With these findings it dismissed the revision vide order dated 30-7-2002.

4. The above orders have been challenged in this petition.

5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner was that no notice was givento the petitioner before initiating the proceeding under Section 182, I.P.C. This colitention, in fact, has no force. Offence punishable under Section 182, I.P.C. is made out against the person whoever gives to any public servant any information which he knows or believes to be false, intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, such public servant--

(a) to do or omit anything which such public servant ought not to do or omit if the true state of facts respecting which such information is given were known by him, or

(b) to use the lawful power of such public servant to the injury or annoyance of any person.

6. It appears that the Investigating Officer while submitting report under Section 169, Cr.P.C. for release of the accused of the case was of the view that the petitioner had lodged false report. It is not clear from the order of the Magistrate that the Investigating Officer has submitted final report in the case as required under Section 173, Cr.P.C. or not. Only on submission of final report it could be ascertained whether the report lodged by the petitioner was false or there was any sufficient evidence to submit charge-sheet against the accused of the case. Unless that stage had come the Magistrate had no sufficient ground to form an opinion that the petitioner had lodged false report and committed an offence punishable under Section 182, I. P. C. In fact, this proceeding, if necessary ought to have been started after submission and acceptance of final report. There would have been also a possibility that on submission of final report the petitioner was given notice and he would have filed protest petition and the learned Magistrate would have rejected the final report. In that situation it could not be said that the report lodged by the petitioner was false. Therefore, initiation of proceeding under Section 182, I.P.C. against the petitioner was premature.

7. The learned Sessions Judge while deciding the revision had also not considered this aspect and confirmed the order of the Magistrate holding that no notice was required before initiating a proceeding under Section 182, I.P.C. But as mentioned above the stage of initiating proceeding in the instant case was premature. Therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed.

8. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed and impugned orders are quashed. However, it is made clear that in case final report is submitted or would have already been submitted the Magistrate shall issue notice to the petitioner and on hearing him shall pass appropriate order. In case he is again satisfied that there is sufficient evidence and reasonable ground to initiate proceeding under Section 182, I.P.C. against the petitioner, he may proceed in accordance with law.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2002 Same Parties Munna Lal vs State of U.P. and ors. Same Subject Criminal Same Judge U.S. Tripathi, J. Acts & Sections Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 182; Code of Crimina...

Criminal