ABCD v. UOI & Ors., W.P. No. 191/2018- 10th December, 2019
CORAM: Two judge bench comprising of Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Indu Malhotra
Wherein, it was held in this case that
“MAKING A FALSE STATEMENT ON OATH & FURNISHING FALSE INFORMATION WITH INTENT TO CAUSE HARM TO PUBLIC SERVANT IS AN OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S. 181 & 182 OF IPC & BY VIRTUE OF S. 195(1)(a)(i) OF CR.PC CAN BE TAKEN COGNIZANCE BY ANY COURT ONLY UPON A PROPER WRITTEN COMPLAINT ”
The facts of the case are that on or around 3.6.2018, FIR 256/2018 was filed by the respondent’s mother submitting that the petitioner and her family had been blackmailing them to pay them a sum of Rs. 15 Lakhs or else they would file false allegations of rape on them. Alleged that Succumbing to the pressure, respondent paid five lakhs and promised to pay the rest within three months. The FIR, Thus alleged the commission of offences punishable u/s. 384, 389 read with S. 34 of IPC
Protection u/s. 438 & 482 of Cr.PC was granted to the petitioner and her family, under which they also sought for the quash of the FIR 256/2018
It was on the background of these two FIR that this writ petition came to be filed for submitting inter alia that since the respondent is a part of the police service there is an apprehension that the investigation by the Delhi Police into the investigation of the FIR lodged by the petitioner might not be proper and fair. In such circumstances like this, it was prayed the investigation be transferred from the Delhi Police to an independent agency & the matter was transferred to the crime branch of the Delhi Police
The issue was to as to if the facts alleged by petitioner are true or not
The Learned Addl. Solicitor Gen. Contended that the investigations were done fairly under the supervision of spl. Investigation team lead by ACP Shweta Singh Chauhan , charge sheets were filed properly, prompt steps were taken by the investigating agency. Also the Learned Addl. Solicitor Gen. contended that it was not a car but a thela on a tricycle that had slightly hit and bruised the petitioner & she deliberately flared it up to show as if the respondent was behind the incident. She did not present the facts truthfully and accurately intentionally as she knew it would be treated as rubbish and minor accident.
The Learned Counsel for the petitioner on the other hand contended that since the Respondent is a part of the Police Service, there is a definite apprehension regarding to the investigation into the crime pursuant to the FIR lodged by the petitioner. The counsel also contended that the crime registered pursuant to the FIR lodged by the respondent’s mother is an indication of undue influence exerted by Respondent. Also, it was contended that certain audio and video recordings were not taken note of while conducting investigation & complete data was not recovered from the two mobiles of the respondent & that after she was hit by a thela there was a car in vicinity and therefore apprehended that it was an attempt on part of someone.
The Court observed that there was nothing substantial to show that the respondent had taken undue advantage of the petitioner or that the investigation was not directed well.
The Court held any audio or video clippings found later on part of petitioner should be submitted to the Spl. Investigation team within two days.
Held that the petitioner has made false oath and furnished false information with intent to cause harm to the respondent who is a public servant is punishable u/s 181 & 182 of IPC. These offences by virtue of S. 195(1)(a)(i) of Cr. PC can be taken cognizance in any court upon a proper written complaint. The registry is directed to register the matter as suo moto proceedings and send a copy of this order to the petitioner who is directed to appear in person in front of the Court on 14.1.2020
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.
View/ Download the Judgment: ABCD v. UOI & Ors.,
– Nardhana Ram
Commentaires