Falte charge of offence made with intent to injure

COMMENTS

See. 211 Syn. 1

1201

1. Scope.-The essentials for invoking Section 211 LP.C. are that the complaint must have falsely
such person with having committed an offence, that is to say, the person must be innocent.
The complainant must have known that there is no just or lawful ground for the proceeding
or charge, that is to charged there is no penalty in this section for incautious or negligible
acceptance of information which the complainant might have learnt by enquiry to be
unreliable. Thirdly, there must have been an intention to to the person. The last can in some
cases be inferred from the relation of the parties when the other two elements are
established. As regards the other two ingredients, it is important to remember that cause
injury difference between suspicion and evidence. The prosecution will have to establish
facts reconcilable with the innocence of the accused A Calcutta case held that the elements
of an offence there is a under Section 211 are firstly that a false charge should be brought;
secondly, that the person bringing it hould know that there was no just or lawful ground for
such proceeding or charge, and thirdly, that it hould be brought to cause injury to the
persons against whom it was made. Where the only finding; recorded is that a false
complaint was brought, it is not sufficient to support a conviction under Section 211 IPC9

The essential ingredients of a offence as stated by the Supreme Court are that under Section 211
1.P.C is to institute or cause to be instituted any criminal proceeding against a person with intent to
cause him njury or with similar intent to falsely charge any person with having committed an offence,
knowing that here is no just or lawful ground for such proceeding or charge.90 Offences under
Section 211 1PC fall under two categories only. The first is a complaint to a Magistrate, the second is
a report of a cognizable offence to a Police Officer. For example where a woman made a charge
against a Non-Commissioned Officer and made it to Station Staff Officer of the Cantonment, it was
held that Section 211 will not apply. Because the Station Staff Officer had neither Magisterial nor
Police power. Similarly, where a petition was presented to the Collector as the superior officer of the
Court of Wards against one of his official inferiors and the Collector treated the petition as a
complaint and examined the petitioner on oath, it was

Held that Section 211 would not apply. $2 On perusal of Section 211, it is evident that one can be
prosecuted for offence under Section 211 I.P.C there is material to show that anyone was tried to be
falsely implicated. F.I.R. shows that it was lodged against unknown. Accordingly, the order of
cognizance in respect of offence under Section 211 I.P.C. is not Sustainable 93

7
In a case G sent a registered letter to the Superintendent of Police in which he stated that a Sub-
Inspector of Police had exacted a bribe of Rs. 20/- from him. An enquiry by D.S.P. revealed the falsity
of allegation. In that case no doubt the letter was addressed to Superintendent of Police. Whether or
not it was that police officer’s duty to institute proceedings against his subordinate, if he thought fit,
to have the bordinate prosecuted and for that purpose he were to make a report to a Magistrate,
such a report would ot be a police report for the purpose of Section 190(b) CrPC. Conviction of
complainant under Section 211 LP.C. is therefore, bad in such a case. There was almost an identical
fact-situation in a Calcutta case where the conclusion was different. There the charge against the
accused was that he made a complaint to he Superintendent of Police that he and his mother had
been unlawfully confined by a certain Police Officer and that money had been extorted wrongly from
them. It was held that offence attracts Section 211 and not Section 182 1.P.C. and accordingly the
case could not be tried summarily. As a matter of fact it is the interest of justice that a man who
brings a false charge of murder against any person should be mosecuted if a prima facie case is made
out against him. 6 Section 211 I.P.C. contemplates a false charge

Bachn Singh v. Trivenisah, AIR 1939 Pat 178: 40 CLJ 157: 179 IC 167. Sew Ratan v. Emperor, AIR 1939
Cal 288: 40 CrLJ 605: 181 IC 916. Samokh Singh v. Izhar Hussein, AIR 1973 SC 2190: 1973 CrLJ 1176,
(1973) SCC (Cr) 828 (1973) 2 SCC 406. Emperess v. Jamoona, 6 C 620: 8 Cr LR 215: 3 Ind. Dec (NS)
403.

Jagobundhoo Karmakar v Emperor, 30 Cal 415. Ajay Kumar Roy v. State, 2014 CrLJ NOC 385. Gaya
Barhai v. Emperor, AIR 1923 Oudh 4: 23 CrLJ 641:69 IC 81. Tofazel Hussein v. H.C. Hunt, AIR 1930 Cal
711: 1930 Cr C 1111: 128 IC 208. Sampuran Singh v. Emperor, 35 CrLJ 1392 151 IC 691 (1) 35 Punj LR
593,

1202 Sec. 211 Syn. 2

Chapter XI-Of False Evidence and Offences against Public Jstics

To an officer of the Court to set the law in motion; hence a report made to an officer for making
inquiry s

Respect to a suspicion of theft is a false report at the utmost, and would not come under Section
2111 When there is no charge in any Court nor any trial nor there is any proceeding for offence
complained, Section 211 goes out of the way. Where the person at whose instance proceedings
under Section 2111PC are initiated against a false complainant, is never charged in any Court, nor is
he ever put upon his na before any Magistrate, nor were any proceedings taken against him before
the Court in which anothe person who was alleged by the false complainant to be his accomplice was
involved, it cannot be said tha the offence under Section 211 LP.C., was an offence which was
committed in or in relation to proceeding in Court, though another person against whom also false
complaint was made in the m transaction is tried in Court In a case the accused filed a petition for
action under Section 107 CrPC, 189 but the Executive Magistrate refused to issue notice. It was held
that there was no criminal proceeding and even if the complaint is found false and malicious, Section
211 I.P.C. would not apply Section 182 apply No criminal proceeding is ensued when a resolution
condemning police action is passed in meeting. Nor does sending of resolution constitute any
institution of criminal proceeding. No offence under Section 182 or Section 211 in the process is
committed.4

2. General Comments. Where the offence under Section 211 consists in giving false information
to the police and the case does not go further than a police inquiry, the offence falls within
para (1) Section 211 and not within para (2) even though the charge made in the report is
one of murder Difference in made in punishment according as the charge relates to offences
punishable with imprisonment which extend to seven years or more or otherwise.

Turning to English Law as laid down by HALSBURY it is an indictable offence at common law to bring a
false charge against a person or to make false statement to police officer investigating an offence.
The gist of the offence of conspiring to accuse another of a crime is that the accusation should be
false to the knowledge of the conspirators. If, however, the object of the conspiracy is to extort
money, the truth falsity of the charge is immaterial. The mere making of a false charge is punishable
under the first part of the section. If a case gets no further than a police inquiry, it falls within that
part. But under the second part there should be an actual institution of criminal proceedings on a
false charge. Two conditions are necessary before the enhanced punishment provided in the second
paragraph could be inflicted() proceedings on the false charge should have been actually instituted,
and (2) the false charge must be in respect of an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for
life, or imprisonment for seven years or upwards.

3. Offence under Section 182: inter-relation with Section 211 I.P.C.-see Section 182

4. Sections 182 and 21110-According to a Nagpur case Section 182 and Section 211 in reality
differ fundamentally as regards the ingredients of the offence concerned. Section 182 is
primarily intended for cases of false information which do not ordinarily involve a particular
allegation or charge against a specified and definite person. Section 211 covers cases where
there is a definite information or charge with reference to a criminal offence against a
particular person. In a case a woman demanded investigation and punishment to Sub-
Inspector who is alleged to have raped her and Sub-Inspector who was found not guilty of
the charge. In complaint by Sub-Inspector against the woman for false charge, it was held
that the woman was guilty of offence under Section 211 and not under Section 182,12
According to the Bombay High Court there is a clear distinction between a false charge which
falls under Section 211 and false

1. Emperor v. Mathura Prasad, AIR 1917 All 223 18 CrLJ 1017: 42 IC 761

2. Muhammada v. Emperor, AIR 1928 Lah 259 29 CrLJ 605 109 IC 685
 3. Teja Singh v. Kishan Singh, AIR 1949 Lah 28: Pak LR 1948 Lah 53: 50 CrLJ 244 (DB) 4. Shiv
Kumar Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, 1984 CrLJ 1417 (Pat),

4. Gaya Tell v. Emperor, AIR 1930 All 818: 129 IC 369. 6. HALSBURY’S Laws of England, 4 th ed.,
Vol. 11, para 955, p. 556.

7. Conteh v. R, 1956 AC 158 P.C.

8. Rv. Hollingberry, (1825) 4 B&C 329; R v Jacobs, Tidmarsh & Partridge, (1845) 1 COX CC 173. 9.
Karsan Jesang, (1941) 43 Bom LR 858: (1942) Bom 22 10. See also the heading Offence under Section
182 and one under Section 211 distinction at Section 182 11. Bholu v. Punaji, AIR 1928 Nag 17: 28
CrLJ 934 9 Al Cr R 87: 105 IC 454 23 NLR 136 87 NLJ 191. 12. Local Govt. V. Mt. Guit, AIR 1935 Nag 69
17 Nag LJ 189

Harge of offence made with intent to injure

Sec. 211 Syn. 4

1203

Information Given to the police, in which latter case the offence falls under Section 182. A person
wing another under Section 182 need not prove malice and want of reasonable and probable cause
mation far as they are implied in the act of giving information known to be false, with the knowledge
or hood that such information would lead a public servant to use his power to the injury or
annoyance of pt so In an inquiry under Section 211, on the other hand, proof of the absence of just
and lawful d for making the charge is an important element. If the information conveyed to the
police amounts complainant institution of criminal proceedings against a defined person or amounts
to the falsely charging of a person with an offence, then the person giving such information is guilty
of an offence under con 211

A case, Section 211 is, and Section 182 is not, the appropriate section under which to frame a Section
182, when read with Section 211, must be understood as referring to cases where the emation given
to the public servant falls short of amounting to institution of criminal proceedings In such inst a
defined person and falls short of amounting to the falsely charging of a defined person with an
defined in the Penal Code 14 ence as
The Calcutta, the Madras, the Allahabad and the Patna High Courts differ from this view of the
gumbay High Court. The Calcutta High Court has ruled that a prosecution for a false charge may be
under Section 182 or Section 211, but if the false charge was a serious one, the graver Section 211
should be and the trial should be full and fair. Where a false charge is made to the police of a
cognizable lence the offence committed by the person making the charge falls within the meaning of
Section 211 plied ad not Section 182.1 The Madras High Court has held that there is no error in a
conviction under S. 182 when the false charge made before the police was punishable under the final
clause of Section 211. The High Court may quash the conviction and sentence for the minor offence
and direct a trial before a tribunal ving jurisdiction for the graver offence. Whether it will do so, or
not, is a question, not of law, but of apediency on the facts of the particular case. 17

The Allahabad High Court had held that where a specific false charge is made, the proper section, for
ceedings to be adopted under, is Section 211. Although it is difficult to see what case would arise der
Section 211 to which Section 182 could not be applied yet Section 182 would apply to a case which
might not fall under Section 211. The offence under Section 182 is complete when false information
is ven to a public servant by a person who believes it to be false, but who intends thereby to cause
such public servant to institute criminal proceedings against a third person. The offence is complete
although the public servant takes no steps towards the institution of such criminal proceedings.
There is no restriction posed by the Penal Code or by the Criminal Procedure Code upon the
prosecution of an offence either ader S. 182 or S. 211. It appears that it has been left to the
discretion of the Court to determine when and nder what circumstances prosecution should be
proceeded with under Sections 182 and 211.19 The 20 soundness of this view is doubted in
subsequent cases. In another Allahabad case the applicant reported police about the theft of his
watch. The police reported the allegation to be false, and the prosecution of be applicant was
instituted by the Superintendent of Police under Section 182 LP.C. The applicant then vent to the
Criminal Courts and filed a complaint to the same effect as the report which had already been found
to be false. That complaint was dismissed, the Magistrate remarking that it was not advisable to
commence a proceeding under Section 211 IP.C. against the applicant ‘on the present proof, and in
view of the fact that the Police had already started proceedings.

The applicant’s prayer to High Court to have the proceeding instituted by the police quashed and to

Have the applicant proceeded under Section 211 1.P.C. by the Magistrate failed. It was held that
when the

Police have taken a step which they are authorised to take, there can be no justification for
interfering with

He same. The Division Bench of Allahabad having refused to accede to the interfering with their
action
Observed. We may say that the case has been argued to us as if the Police could take action under 13
Section 182 and the Magistrate could take action under Section 211, but that the converse
propositions di making a false report at a police station does not come within both the Sections 182
and 211 21 The Pat not apply. We must not be considered in any way whatever to accede to the
proposition that the offence of High Court has followed the view of the Calcutta High Court 22 The
Lahore High Court has held that offence under Section 182 is included in the more serious offence
under Section 211 and a prosecution for false charge may be either under Section 182 or Section
211, though clearly if Section 211 does apply and the false charge is serious prosecution should be
under Section 21123 In a Madras case there was complaint of theft by the accused against his former
servant which turned out to be false. The case, it wa held falls under Section 211 and not under
Section 182 LP.C. The facts in the complaint having disclosed both minor and gravier offence, it was
held, prosecution should be for the latter. An offence constituted by a false complaint against
unknown persons is not one under Section 211, but one under Section 182.

24. Cases. It was alleged that petitioner’s son was kidnapped by opposite party but he appeared and
made his statement that he was not kidnapped and had infact voluntarily gone to marry the girl. The
gid also had appeared and made her statement that she and the petitioner’s son had married and for
that reason the petitioner was threatening to kill them. It was held that the order taking cognizance
of offences against petitioner for falsely implicating the opposite party is proper. A complaint was
lodged by petitioner against accused for house trespass and theft of his properties. Police submitted
a referal report with report of false accusations. Though the petitioner filed a protest complaint, it
was also not registered. Instead petitioner was prosecuted under Sections: 182 and 211, 1PC for
setting law in motion falsely. It is held that order taking cognizance is not sustainable in law and fit to
be quashed.

25. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

(a) Essential Ingredients. This section includes two distinct offences

Actually instituting or causing to be instituted false criminal proceeding against a person. (ii)
Preferring a false charge against a person. The first assumes the second, but the second may be
committed where no criminal proceedings follow.

The necessary ingredients to constitute either of the above offences are (1) the criminal proceedings
must be instituted, or the false charge made with intent to injure, (ii) the criminal proceedings must
be instituted, or the false charge must be made, without just or lawful

Ground, in other words, it must be made maliciously.

Per RANADE, J., in Raghavendra v. Kashinathbhat, (1894) 19 Bom 717,725 Apaya, (1913) 15 Bom LR
574. Also see State of Punjab v. Brij Lal Palta, AIR 1969 SC 355: (1969) CILJ 645
Sarada Prosad Chatterjee, (1904) 32 Cal 180, followed in Gati Mandal, (1905) 4 CLJ 88.

Giridhari Naik, (1901) 5 CWN 727. 17. (1872) 7 MHC (Appx) 5.

Jugal Kishore, (1886) 8 All 382

19. Per EDGE, CJ in Raghu Tiwari, (1893) 15 All 336, 338, 2. Kashi Ram, (1924) 22 ALJR 829;
Samokhan, (1924) 26 CLJ 594

1216

Sec. 211 Syn, 25

Chapter X-Of False Evidence and Offences against Public Juice

(b) Evidence. Before Section 211, 1P C. Can be invoked three things have to be proved:
(a) that the acced had intended to cause injury to any persons, thy that with that
object he instituted or caused to be instituted a crim proceeding against that person
or in the alternative falsely charged him with having committed an offence, and is th
he did so with the knowledge that there was no just or lawful ground for such
proceeding or charge again tha person.

In order to bring home the charge under Section 211, IPC the prosecution must establish that there
are no y and lawful grounds for the action taken and that the accused knew this The mere
communication of a suspicion to the police does not amount to a charge of a criminal offence. For a
conviction under Section 211, 1.P.C. it is necessary e prove that the accused knew that there was no
just or lawful ground for the charge 35 Under Section 211, 1PC the prosecution must prove that
there was no just or lawful ground for the charge and unless this is proved the informe cannot be
prosecuted under Section 211. The person proceeded against under Section 211, such person must
be show to have actually known that there was no just and lawful ground for making the charge.
Where a person had informed the police by a letter, in which he did not claim any personal
knowledge of the facts, but on the information supplied to him by others, that a certain person had
murdered a woman and it was found that there was no enmity between the informer and such
person, it was held that on these facts, the informer could not be charged under Section 211 In order
to prove an offence under Section 211, it will be necessary for the prosecution to establish, that the
prosecutio brought by the appellant against the respondent was brought with intent to cause injury
to the respondent; secondly that the charge made against the respondent was false; and thirdly, that
it was made with the knowledge on the part of the appellant that there was no just or lawful ground
for such charge. A mere belief without any foundation whatsoever does not justify a Court of justice
to send a man for trial. Before a Court orders a prosecution under Section 211, there must be enough
materials to justify a complaint being filed Le, there must be enough materials to show the is a prima
facie case. A dismissal of complaint does not justify a Court in prosecuting the complainant under
Section 211. In a case under Section 211 the prosecution has to prove clearly that the charge was
wilfully false to the knowledge of the maker thereof and if they fail to do so, the mere fact of the
accused failing to examine any one as defence witness will not mean his guilt having been proved

Two principles may be borne in mind: (1) that failure of a complainant to establish the truth of his
allegation does not mean that the complaint was false; (2) that to secure a conviction it must be
established beyond reasonable doubt that the circumstances are not merely consistent with the guilt
of the accused, but entirely inconsistent with his innocence 40

(c) Procedure. Offence under Section 211, IP.C. is not cognizable, but bailable, not
compoundable (d) Complaint-Complaint in writing is essential for taking action under
this section. Section

Judicial Magistrate, 1st class; Court of Session,

Cr.P.C., and for making of complaint Section 340 Cr.P.C

(name and office of Magistrate, etc.) hereby charge you (name of accused) as

Day of

(d) Model charge. I.

Follows:-

That you, on or about the

. triable by

195(1)(b)(i)
With intent to cause injury to one charging the said with having committed an offence, to wit

[instituted criminal proceedings before 1. (or) [falsely charged the said before

With having committed an offence, to wit knowing at the time that there was no just or lawful
ground for such proceeding (or charge) against the said and that you thereby committed an offence
punishable under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code, and within my

Cognizance (or cognizance of the Court of Session),

And I do hereby direct you to be tried [by the said Court (in cases tried by the Magistrate omit these
words)] on

The said charge.

33. Hari Das v. State of WB. AIR 1964 SC 1773: (1964) 2 CrLJ 737 (1965) 2 SCJ 329: (1964) 7 SCR 237.
34. Abdul Gafur v. The Crown, AIR 1925 Lah 325 26 CrLJ 2165 88 IC 525.

35. Gopal Kahar v. Emperor, 22 CrLJ 333 (Cal): 61 IC 61.

36. Karim Baksh v. Emperor, 2 CILJ 66 (2): 74 PLR 1905 37. U. Pothein v. Butakhan, AIR 1936 Rang 473
38 CrLJ 226 38. Din Mohammed v. Emperor, AIR 1927 All 107:27 CrLJ 1345 39. Hasan Mirza v.
Emperor, AIR 1914 Cal 349 15 CrLI 355 18 CWN 391

40. Ram Prasad v. Emperor, 13 CrLJ 897: 17 IC 993: 17 Cal WN 379: 16 Cal LJ 453 (FB)

Harbouri

Believe

Punish

Extend
Impriso

With im

Year

Pro

Lon

Wh

Na

45