Victims Of False Police Complaint Can Institute Proceedings U/S 211 IPC, Bar Under S.195 CrPC Won't Apply: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that a private individual who is falsely accused in a police complaint can himself initiate proceedings against the accused under Section 211 IPC, without having to get the action initiated by the court.For context, Section 211 criminalises the act of instituting criminal proceedings on false charges, with intent to cause injury and with knowledge that there is no just or lawful ground for such proceeding.Cognizance of an offence under Section 211 IPC is barred under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC, unless a written complaint is made by the Court in which, or in relation to whose proceedings, the offence is alleged to have been committed.In the case at hand, Petitioner Sunair Hotels Ltd. was summoned for allegedly lodging a false theft complaint against the Respondent VLS Finance Ltd., following business disputes.Petitioner had accused Respondent of unlawfully procuring documents from the Income Tax Department and possession of stolen property.These complaints were subsequently closed after the Income Tax Department clarified that the documents in question had not been stolen and remained in official custody.This prompted the Respondent to institute proceedings under Sections 211/34/120-B IPC.Petitioner argued that only offences under Section 182 IPC (false information to a public servant) were attracted, and that cognisance under Section 211 IPC was barred under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC without a written complaint from a Court.Rejecting these contentions, Justice Sanjeev Narula held that the bar under Section 195 CrPC applies only when the false charge is made in or in relation to a proceeding before a court. Since the allegedly false complaints were made to the police and never matured into judicial proceedings, the restriction was inapplicable. Consequently, the Magistrate was competent to take cognisance on a private complaint.“The record reveals that no judicial proceeding was either pending or concluded in connection with the alleged offence of theft. The complaints lodged by Sunair on 21st March, 2005 and 14th April, 2006 were made before the police, not before any Court of law, and were closed at the stage of inquiry, based on clarification from the Income Tax Department. They never matured into judicial proceedings.Accordingly, at the time cognizance was taken, there existed no judicial proceeding, pending or concluded, in or in relation to which the alleged offence under Section 211 IPC could have been committed. The embargo under Section 195(1)(b)(i) Cr.P.C. is therefore inapplicable, and the Magistrate rightly assumed jurisdiction to take cognizance and issue summons to the Petitioners.”Reliance was placed on M.L. Sethi v. R.P. Kapur (1966) where the Supreme Court held that the embargo under Section 195 applies only upon the conjunctive satisfaction of the following conditions: (i) the offence falls under Section 211 IPC; (ii) there is a proceeding before any court; and (iii) the offence under Section 211 is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, such proceeding. Unless all three conditions co-exist, the bar under Section 195(1)(b) will not apply. “The provision thus creates a procedural safeguard, to prevent private individuals from initiating criminal proceedings for offences that directly impinge upon the administration of justice. However, the judicial interpretation of this embargo has consistently sought to ensure that the restriction does not defeat the larger objective of enabling redress for genuine grievances,” the Court said.As such, it refused to quash the case.Appearance: Mr. Tanveer Ahmed Mir, Senior Advocate with Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Mr. Jatin Sethi, Mr. Shwetank Tyagi and Mr. Chandra Shekhar Anand, Advocates for Petitioner; Ms. Rupali Bandhopadhya, ASC with Mr. Abhijeet Kumar, Advocate for the State. Insp. Sandeep Maan, PS: EOW. Mr. Bharat Chugh, Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma, Mr. Maanish M. Choudhary, Mr. Jai Allagh and Ms. Anuna Tiwari, Advocates for R-2.Case title: Sunair Hotels Ltd. v. State & Anr.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1351Case no.: CRL.M.C. 1458/2011Click here to read order

Victims Of False Police Complaint Can Institute Proceedings U/S 211 IPC, Bar Under S.195 CrPC Won't Apply: Delhi High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags