Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Anil Kumar J. Bavishi vs Mahendra Kumar Jalan @ M.K. Jalan on 19 December, 2024
Author: Sudhanshu Dhulia
Bench: Sudhanshu Dhulia
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 5490 OF 2024
[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 6845 OF 2024]
ANIL KUMAR J. BAVISHI Appellant(s)
VERSUS
MAHENDRA KUMAR JALAN
@ M.K. JALAN Respondent(s)
ORDER
Leave granted.
Presently, we have a case before us where the
appellant has challenged the order of the High Court
dated 05.02.2024 passed on an application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., whereby the High Court has
declined to grant relief to the appellant for the reason
that what the appellant sought was that his private
complaint, which has been made before the Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, for alleged offences
committed at the hands of the respondent under
Sections 193/199/200 IPC, be allowed. The High Court
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Jayant Kumar Arora
Date: 2025.01.02
16:33:12 IST
Reason:
declined the relief for the reasons that such a complaint
under Cr.P.C. can only be made on directions of the
2
court concerned.
The only question therefore before us is whether
such a complaint can be made only by orders of the
court, as contemplated under Section 195 read with
Section 340 Cr.P.C. or it can also be entertained as a
private complaint.
For a ready reference, the offences which the
appellant allegedly committed are under Sections
193/199/200 of the Indian Penal Code, which read as
under :
“Section 193. Punishment for
false evidence Whoever intentionally
gives false evidence in any of a judicial
proceeding, or fabricates false evidence
for the purpose of being used in any
stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may
extend to seven years, and shall also
be liable to fine; and whoever
intentionally gives or fabricates false
evidence in any other case, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may
3
extend to three years, and shall also be
liable to fine.
Section 199. False statement made in declaration which is by law receivable as evidence
Whoever, in any declaration made or
subscribed by him, which declaration
any Court of Justice, or any public
servant or other person, is bound or
authorized by law to receive as
evidence of any fact, makes any
statement which is false, and which he
either knows or believes to be false or
does not believe to be true, touching
any point material to the object for
which the declaration is made or used,
shall be punished in the same manner
as if he gave false evidence.
Section 200. Using as true such
declaration knowing it to be false
Whoever corruptly uses or attempts to
use as true any such declaration,
knowing the same to be false in any
material point, shall be punished in the
same manner as if he gave false
evidence.”
4
Now, a bare perusal of the above Sections shows
that the offences mentioned therein can be committed,
either before a court or at any other place as well.
Section 195 read with Section 340 Cr.P.C. prescribes a
definite route which has to be mandatorily followed if
such an offence is alleged to have been committed
before a court. But this would not mean that a person is
without remedy when such an offence is committed
outside the court i.e. in any other forum, such as a
Tribunal, which may not be a court, like in the present
case.
The offences were allegedly committed before a
Tribunal known as Municipal Building Tribunal. It is
an admitted fact that this Tribunal is not defined as a
Court.
The precise case of the appellant is that since the
“act” or the offence is not before a court, the only
remedy for him now is to file a Private Complaint. It is
true that in his first round of litigation, he had moved
an application that the court may take a cognizance of it
and filed a complaint under Section 195 read with
5
Section 340 Cr.P.C., which the Tribunal as well as the
High Court had declined.
In the second round of litigation, the appellant filed
a private complaint, on which the cognizance was taken
but the respondent, who allegedly committed the
offence, invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the High
Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., wherein it was argued
that for these offences a private complaint cannot be
filed and the law prescribes a definite path to be
followed here which is laid down in Section 195 read
with Section 340 of Cr.P.C.
The High Court came to the conclusion that the
offences alleged to have been committed were those
offences, on which the complaint could have been filed
only by the court or the orders of the court prescribed
under Section 195 Cr.P.C. and thereafter, the procedure
under Section 340 Cr.P.C. has to be followed and,
therefore, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was
allowed, the complaint was quashed.
Before us, the appellant has confined his
arguments only under Sections 193, 199 and 200 IPC.
6
We have absolutely no doubt in our mind that an
offence under Section 193/199/200 can theoretically be
committed inside as well as outside a court. It is an
admitted case that the proceedings which are taking
before the Tribunal is not a Court, as defined under the
law. Therefore, it was not empowered to entertain such
an application as prescribed under the law under
Section 195 read with Section 340 Cr.P.C. The only way
such an application can be entertained and that too, for
the precise offences of Sections 193, 199 and 200 is
through a private complaint and only relating to the
offences before the Tribunal. We may refer here a
decision of this Court in Iqbal Singh Narang & Ors. Vs.
Veeran Narang reported in (2012) 2 SCC 60 wherein
under similar circumstances it was held that the only
solution in such cases for a Tribunal (which is not a
Court) is to entertain a private complaint.
We are of the considered view that in the present
case the only route available for the appellant was to file
a private complaint, and the Tribunal rightly had
entertained such a complaint. The impugned order
7
dated 05.02.2024 passed by the High Court is hence set
aside. The complaint shall be entertained by the
concerned Tribunal and thereafter, the orders shall be
passed. We make it absolutely clear that we have
allowed this application only on a technicality and a
question of law. The fate of the complaint would lie on
its merits to be decided by the Tribunal.
In view of above, the appeal is allowed.
Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are
disposed of.
……….………………………..J.
[ SUDHANSHU DHULIA ]
……….………….……………..J.
[ AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ]
New Delhi;
DECEMBER 19, 2024.
8
ITEM NO.17 COURT NO.14 SECTION II-B
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 6845 of 2024
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 05.02.2024
in CRR No. 1600 of 2017 passed by the High Court at Calcutta)
ANIL KUMAR J. BAVISHI Appellant(s)
VERSUS
MAHENDRA KUMAR JALAN @ M.K. JALAN Respondent(s)
(IA No. 115401/2024 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT)
Date : 19-12-2024 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
For Appellant(s) Mr. Vikash Singh, AOR
Mr. S. Hariharan, Adv.
Mr. K. M. Kalidharun, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Siddarth Luthra, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Somopriyo Chowdhury, Adv.
Ms. Pritha Basu, Adv.
Mr. Ashish Choudhury, AOR
Mr. Akash Agarwal, Adv.
Mr. Debartha Chakraborty, Adv.
Mr. Sougati, Adv.
Mr. Anand Kamal, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Arora, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed
of.
(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (RENU BALA GAMBHIR)
ASST. REGISTRAR-CUM-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file)