1
\nIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
\nCRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
\nCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 5490 OF 2024
\n[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 6845 OF 2024]
\nANIL KUMAR J. BAVISHI Appellant(s)
\nVERSUS
\nMAHENDRA KUMAR JALAN
\n@ M.K. JALAN Respondent(s)
\nO R D E R
\nLeave granted.
\nPresently, we have a case before us where the
\nappellant has challenged the order of the High Court
\ndated 05.02.2024 passed on an application under
\nSection 482 Cr.P.C., whereby the High Court has
\ndeclined to grant relief to the appellant for the reason
\nthat what the appellant sought was that his private
\ncomplaint, which has been made before the Chief
\nMetropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, for alleged offences
\ncommitted at the hands of the respondent under
\nSections 193\/199\/200 IPC, be allowed. The High Court
\ndeclined the relief for the reasons that such a complaint
\nunder Cr.P.C. can only be made on directions of the
\n2
\ncourt concerned.
\nThe only question therefore before us is whether
\nsuch a complaint can be made only by orders of the
\ncourt, as contemplated under Section 195 read with
\nSection 340 Cr.P.C. or it can also be entertained as a
\nprivate complaint.
\nFor a ready reference, the offences which the
\nappellant allegedly committed are under Sections
\n193\/199\/200 of the Indian Penal Code, which read as
\nunder :\u00ad
\n\u201cSection 193. Punishment for
\nfalse evidence \u00ad Whoever intentionally
\ngives false evidence in any of a judicial
\nproceeding, or fabricates false evidence
\nfor the purpose of being used in any
\nstage of a judicial proceeding, shall be
\npunished with imprisonment of either
\ndescription for a term which may
\nextend to seven years, and shall also
\nbe liable to fine; and whoever
\nintentionally gives or fabricates false
\nevidence in any other case, shall be
\npunished with imprisonment of either
\ndescription for a term which may
\n3
\nextend to three years, and shall also be
\nliable to fine.
\nSection 199. False statement
\nmade in declaration which is by
\nlaw receivable as evidence \u00ad
\nWhoever, in any declaration made or
\nsubscribed by him, which declaration
\nany Court of Justice, or any public
\nservant or other person, is bound or
\nauthorized by law to receive as
\nevidence of any fact, makes any
\nstatement which is false, and which he
\neither knows or believes to be false or
\ndoes not believe to be true, touching
\nany point material to the object for
\nwhich the declaration is made or used,
\nshall be punished in the same manner
\nas if he gave false evidence.
\nSection 200. Using as true such
\ndeclaration knowing it to be false \u00ad
\nWhoever corruptly uses or attempts to
\nuse as true any such declaration,
\nknowing the same to be false in any
\nmaterial point, shall be punished in the
\nsame manner as if he gave false
\nevidence.\u201d
\n4
\nNow, a bare perusal of the above Sections shows
\nthat the offences mentioned therein can be committed,
\neither before a court or at any other place as well.
\nSection 195 read with Section 340 Cr.P.C. prescribes a
\ndefinite route which has to be mandatorily followed if
\nsuch an offence is alleged to have been committed
\nbefore a court. But this would not mean that a person is
\nwithout remedy when such an offence is committed
\noutside the court i.e. in any other forum, such as a
\nTribunal, which may not be a court, like in the present
\ncase.
\nThe offences were allegedly committed before a
\nTribunal known as Municipal Building Tribunal. It is
\nan admitted fact that this Tribunal is not defined as a
\nCourt.
\nThe precise case of the appellant is that since the
\n\u201cact\u201d or the offence is not before a court, the only
\nremedy for him now is to file a Private Complaint. It is
\ntrue that in his first round of litigation, he had moved
\nan application that the court may take a cognizance of it
\nand filed a complaint under Section 195 read with
\n5
\nSection 340 Cr.P.C., which the Tribunal as well as the
\nHigh Court had declined.
\nIn the second round of litigation, the appellant filed
\na private complaint, on which the cognizance was taken
\nbut the respondent, who allegedly committed the
\noffence, invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the High
\nCourt under Section 482 Cr.P.C., wherein it was argued
\nthat for these offences a private complaint cannot be
\nfiled and the law prescribes a definite path to be
\nfollowed here which is laid down in Section 195 read
\nwith Section 340 of Cr.P.C.
\nThe High Court came to the conclusion that the
\noffences alleged to have been committed were those
\noffences, on which the complaint could have been filed
\nonly by the court or the orders of the court prescribed
\nunder Section 195 Cr.P.C. and thereafter, the procedure
\nunder Section 340 Cr.P.C. has to be followed and,
\ntherefore, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was
\nallowed, the complaint was quashed.
\nBefore us, the appellant has confined his
\narguments only under Sections 193, 199 and 200 IPC.
\n6
\nWe have absolutely no doubt in our mind that an
\noffence under Section 193\/199\/200 can theoretically be
\ncommitted inside as well as outside a court. It is an
\nadmitted case that the proceedings which are taking
\nbefore the Tribunal is not a Court, as defined under the
\nlaw. Therefore, it was not empowered to entertain such
\nan application as prescribed under the law under
\nSection 195 read with Section 340 Cr.P.C. The only way
\nsuch an application can be entertained and that too, for
\nthe precise offences of Sections 193, 199 and 200 is
\nthrough a private complaint and only relating to the
\noffences before the Tribunal. We may refer here a
\ndecision of this Court in Iqbal Singh Narang & Ors. Vs.
\nVeeran Narang reported in (2012) 2 SCC 60 wherein
\nunder similar circumstances it was held that the only
\nsolution in such cases for a Tribunal (which is not a
\nCourt) is to entertain a private complaint.
\nWe are of the considered view that in the present
\ncase the only route available for the appellant was to file
\na private complaint, and the Tribunal rightly had
\nentertained such a complaint. The impugned order
\n7
\ndated 05.02.2024 passed by the High Court is hence set
\naside. The complaint shall be entertained by the
\nconcerned Tribunal and thereafter, the orders shall be
\npassed. We make it absolutely clear that we have
\nallowed this application only on a technicality and a
\nquestion of law. The fate of the complaint would lie on
\nits merits to be decided by the Tribunal.
\nIn view of above, the appeal is allowed.
\nPending interlocutory application(s), if any, is\/are
\ndisposed of.
\n……….\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026…………..J.
\n[ SUDHANSHU DHULIA ]
\n……….\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026.\u2026\u2026………..J.
\n[ AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ]
\nNew Delhi;
\nDECEMBER 19, 2024.
\n8
\nITEM NO.17 COURT NO.14 SECTION II-B
\nS U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
\nRECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
\nPetition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 6845 of 2024
\n(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 05.02.2024
\nin CRR No. 1600 of 2017 passed by the High Court at Calcutta)
\nANIL KUMAR J. BAVISHI Appellant(s)
\nVERSUS
\nMAHENDRA KUMAR JALAN @ M.K. JALAN Respondent(s)
\n(IA No. 115401\/2024 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C\/C OF THE IMPUGNED
\nJUDGMENT)
\nDate : 19-12-2024 This matter was called on for hearing today.
\nCORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA
\nHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
\nFor Appellant(s) Mr. Vikash Singh, AOR
\nMr. S. Hariharan, Adv.
\nMr. K. M. Kalidharun, Adv.<\/p>\n
For Respondent(s) Mr. Siddarth Luthra, Sr. Adv.
\nMr. Somopriyo Chowdhury, Adv.
\nMs. Pritha Basu, Adv.
\nMr. Ashish Choudhury, AOR
\nMr. Akash Agarwal, Adv.
\nMr. Debartha Chakraborty, Adv.
\nMr. Sougati, Adv.
\nMr. Anand Kamal, Adv.
\nMr. Abhishek Arora, Adv.<\/p>\n
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
\nO R D E R
\nLeave granted.
\nThe appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
\nPending interlocutory application(s), if any, is\/are disposed
\nof.<\/p>\n
(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (RENU BALA GAMBHIR)
\nASST. REGISTRAR-CUM-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
\n(Signed order is placed on the file)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
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) O R D E R Leave granted. Presently, we have a case before us where the appellant […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[481],"tags":[463,15],"class_list":["post-15020","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-481","tag-judgement","tag-supreme-court--"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/service-public.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15020","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/service-public.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/service-public.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/service-public.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/service-public.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=15020"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/service-public.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15020\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":15021,"href":"https:\/\/service-public.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15020\/revisions\/15021"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/service-public.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=15020"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/service-public.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=15020"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/service-public.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=15020"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}