Fighting back false cases - remedies ... research ...


False criminal cases by wife ??


Suggested remedies :


You can file IPC 211 –


This Can be filed even before police submits chargesheet


No need to wait till police / the court decides that the complaint is false


Bar of sec. 195 would NOT apply


sec. 195 (1) (b)

(i)   Of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely, sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any court, or

(ii) Of any offence described in section 463, or punishable under section 471, section 475 or section 476, of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court, or

(iii) Of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (ii), except on the complaint in writing of that court, or of some other court to which that court is subordinate.

1[except on the complaint in writing of that Court by such officer of the Court as that Court may authorise in writing in this behalf, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate].



Supreme Court of India

M. L. Sethi vs R. P. Kapur & Anr on 23 September, 1966

Equivalent citations: 1967 AIR 528, 1967 SCR (1) 520

HELD: The complaint filed by the respondent was competent and the Magistrate was not barred from taking cognizance of it by the provisions of s. 195 ( 1) (b) Cr.P.C.; and, in taking cognizance of it he only exercised jurisdiction rightly vested in him. [542 A-B]

(i) When a Magistrate is taking cognizance under s. 190 Cr.P.C. he must examine the facts of the complaint before him and determine whether his power of taking cognizance under the section has or has not been taken away under S. 195(1) Cr.P.C. , In the case of an offence under s. 211 I.P.C., s. 195(1)(b), Cr.P.C., provides that no court shall take cognizance of it when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any court, except on the complaint in writing of such court or of some other court to which such court is subordinate. That is, s. 195(1)(b ) Cr.P.C. bars taking cognizance if all the following circumstances exist, namely, (i) that the offence in respect of which the case is brought falls under s. 211 I.P.C. (ii) that there -should be a proceeding in a court, and (iii) that the allegation should be that the offence under s. 211 I.P.C. was committed in, or in relation to such a proceeding. When examining the question whether there is any proceeding in any court, three situations can be envisaged:(a) There may be no proceeding in any court at all; (b) a.proceeding in a court may actually be pending when cognizance is taken of the offence under S-. 211 I.P.C., and (c) though there may be no proceeding pending in a court, there may have been a proceeding which had already concluded and the offence under s. 211 may


be alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, that proceeding. In cases (b) and (c), the bar to taking cognizance under s. 195(1) (b) Cr.P.C. would come into operation. In case (a), when there is no proceeding pending in any court at all at the time when the applicability of S. 195(1) (b), Cr.P.C. has to be determined, nor has there been any earlier proceeding which may have been concluded.. the sub-,section would not apply, and in such a case, the Magistrate would be competent to take cognizance of the offence under s. 211 I.P.C., if his jurisdiction is invoked in the manner laid down in s. 190 of Criminal Procedure Code. [526 F-G; 527 B, G-H, 528 E-F; 529 C-E, G-H] Caselaw considered.

(ii)There is nothing in the language of the sub-section to indicate that theLegislature also intended to lay down this bar if a proceeding in court was still under contemplation and if and when the proceeding is taken it may be found that the offence alleged to have been committed was, in fact, committed in or in relation to, that proceeding. The Magis- trate could not be expected to come to a decision whether any such proceeding in any court was under contemplation, and any interpretation of law which will make its applicability dependent on a future decision to be taken by some person and thus introduce an element of uncertainty, should be avoided. [530 B-F]

(iii)At the stage when the complaint was filed by the respondent against the appellant the police were inquiring into the appellant's report. In such a case, there may be no justification for the police to bring a charge of false information being given to them until investigation is ,completed. Similarly, a Magistrate has-no jurisdiction to order a prosecution for making a false complaint, till the complaint was dismissed. But there is no requirement anywhere in law that the person affected by the false charge could not file his complaint in court until the police had decided that the charge is false. [534 F-H; 535 A-B] Queen v. Subanna Goundan, (1862-63) 1 M.H.C.R. 30 and Gati Mandal v. Emperor, 27 Cr. L.J. 1105, referred to. (iv) The mere fact that, on a report being made to the police of a cognizable offence, the proceeding must, at a latter stage., end in a judicial order by the Magistrate, cannot, stand in the way of a private complaint being filed and of cognizance being taken by the court on its basis. The scheme of the provisions relating to investigation in the Criminal Procedure Code, requires that upon the completion of investigation, the investigating officer has to submit a report to the Magistrate under s.173 Cr.P.C. furnishing various details and stating whether it appears to him there is or is not sufficient evidence or reasonable ground for placthe accused on trial. At that stage there may be an intervention by ire Magistrate in his judicial capacity. But until some occasion arises for a Magistrate to make a judicial order in connection with the investi. gation of a cognizable offence by the police, no question can arise of the Magistrate having the power of filing a complaint under s. 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. [540 DI. G-H; 541 B-C] (v) It is not correct to say that s. 195 Cr.P.C. lays down that the offence& therein referred to shall not be deemed to be any offences at all, except on the complaint of the persons or the courts therein specified. An offence is constituted as soon as it is found that the facts which constitute the offence have been committed by the person -accused of the offence, and it remains an offence whether it is triable by a court or not. [535 G-H]

Observations contra in Fakir Mohamed v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1927 Sind 10 overruled.


(vi) It was not necessary that the proceeding taken by the police should terminate before the court could competently take cognizance of the complaint filed by the respondent against the appellant. [537 H]

(vii) In the case of s. 195(1)(b) there is a limitation that private prosecutions are barred only if the offences mentioned in that sub-section were alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to any proceeding in any court. If the offence was not committed,, in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any court, a private complaint is permissible. [537 D-E]

Ramaswami Iyengar v. Panduranga Mudaliar, A.I.R. 1938 Mad. 173, referred to.

(viii) It is true that if a private person is allowed to file a complaint that the report to the police against him is false before investigation is corn leted, and the court takes cognizance of it, there may be two trials, in one of which person accused of an offence may be under trial, while in the other, the person who complained to the police may appear as a person accused of an offence under s. 211 I.P.C. But, there is no difficulty in dealing with such a possible anomalous situation, by trying both cases together or one after the other. [541 C-F]



further, complaint u/s 417 - Cheating - can also be filed directly in the court ....


by giving false information, the wife CHEATS police & there is no bar for you to file a private complaint.


the contention that -

false info. is given to police, so husband is NOT aggrieved person & has no locus standi to file complaint can be over-ruled with the following judgement :

Supreme Court of India
A. R. Antulay vs Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak And Another on 16 February, 1984
Equivalent citations: 1984 AIR 718, 1984 SCR (2) 914
Bench: Desai, D.A., Pathak, R.S., Reddy, O. Chinnappa (J), Sen, A.P. (J), Eradi, V. Balakrishna (J)

HELD: 1. It is a well established cannon of construction that the court should read the section as it is and cannot rewrite it to suit its convenience; nor does any cannon of construction permit the court to read the section in such manner as to render it to some extent otiose. [936D- E]

2:1. A private complaint filed in respect of the offences committed by public servants as enumerated in s. 6 (1) and (b) of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1952 can be entertained by the special Judge and taken cognizance of. The same is perfectly legal. [936B]

State of Tamil Nadu v. V. Krishnaswami Naidu & Anr. [1979] 3 S.C.R. 928; Parasnath Pande & Anr. v. State, A.I.R. 1962 Bom 205; Jagdish Prasad Verma v. The State, A.I.R. 1966 Patna 15; referred to.

2:2. It is a well recognised principle of criminal jurisprudence that anyone can set or put the criminal law into motion except where the statute enacting or creating an offence indicates to the contrary. The Scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure envisages two parallel and independent agencies for taking criminal offences to court. Even for the most serious offence of murder, it was not disputed that a private complaint can, not only be filed but can be entertained and proceeded with according to law. Locus Standi of the complaint is a concept foreign to criminal jurisprudence save and except that where the statute creating an offence provides for the eligibility of the complaint, by necessary implication the general principle gets excluded by such statutory provision. [923D-F] While s. 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure permits anyone to approach the Magistrate with complaint, it does not prescribe any qualification the complaint is required to fulfil to be eligible to file a complaint. But where an eligibility criterion for a complaint is contemplated specific provisions have been made such as to be found in ss. 195 & 199 of the Cr. P. C. These specific provisions clearly indicate that in the absence of any such statutory provisions, a locus standi of a complaint is a concept foreign to criminal jurisprudence. In other words the principle that anyone can set or put the criminal law in motion remains intact unless contraindicated by a statutory provision. [923G-H; 924A]

This general principle of nearly universal application is founded on a policy that an offence i.e. an act or omission made punishable by any law for the time being in force (See s. 2 (n) Cr. P. C.) is not merely an offence committed in relation to the person who suffers harm but is also an offence


against society. The society for its orderly and peaceful development is interested in the punishment of the offender. Therefore, prosecution for serious offences is undertaken in the name of the state representing the people which would exclude any element of private vendatta or vengeance. If such is the public policy underlying penal statutes, who brings an act or omission made punishable by law to the notice of the authority competent to deal with it, is immaterial and irrelevant unless the statute indicates to the contrary. Punishment of the offender in the interest of the society being one of the objects behind penal statutes enacted for larger good of the society, right to initiate proceedings cannot be whittled down, circumscribed or fettered by putting it into a straight jacket formula of locus standi unknown to criminal jurisprudence, save and except specific statutory exception. To hold that such an exception exists that a private complaint for offences of corruption committed by public servant is not maintainable, the court would require an unambiguous statutory provision and a tengled web of argument for drawing a far fetched implication, cannot be a substitute for an express statutory provision. [924A-E]

It is no answer to this fairly well-established legal position that for the last 32 years no case has come to the notice of the court in which cognizance was taken by a special Judge in a private complaint for offences punishable under the 1947 Act. If something that did not happen in the past is to be the sole reliable guide so as to deny any such thing happening in the future, law would be rendered static and slowly whither away. [925C]

The Scheme underlying Code of Criminal Procedure clearly reveals that anyone who wants to give information of an offence may either approach the Magistrate or the officer in charge of a Police Station. If the offence complained of is a non-cognizable one, the Police Officer can either direct the complaint to approach the Magistrate or he may obtain permission of the Magistrate and investigate the offence. Similarly any one can approach the Magistrate with a complaint and even if the offence disclosed is a serious one, the Magistrate is competent to take cognizance of the offence and initiate proceedings. It is open to the Magistrate but not obligatory upon him to direct investigation by police. Thus two agencies have been set up for taking offences to court. One would therefore, require a cogent and explicit provision to hold that s. 5A displaces this scheme. [925D-F]

2:3. Section 8(1) of the 1952 Act which confers power on the special Judge to take cognizance of offences set out in s. 6(1) (a) (b) does not directly or indirectly, expressly or by necessary implication indicate that the only method of taking cognizance is the police report under s. 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure submitted by a police officer of the designated rank or permissible rank as set out in s. 5A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. [932G-H]

2:4. In the absence of a specific provision made in the statute indicating that offences will have to be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to that statute, the same will have to be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to the Code of Criminal Procedure. In other words, Code of Criminal Procedure



is the parent statute which provides for investigation, inquiring into and trial of cases by criminal courts of various designations. [935A-B]



full judgements attached herewith ...

Attached File : 732599070 1) a. r. antulay vs ramdas sriniwas nayak and another on 16 february, 1984 - sc.pdf, 732599070 3) m. l. sethi vs r. p. kapur & anr on 23 september, 1966 - 211 can be filed.pdf downloaded 124 times

Total likes : 1 times

IT professional Studying Law

Thx Amit




Bombay High Court

Shriram Krishnappa Asegaonkar vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr. on 24 July, 1986

Equivalent citations: 1987 (1) BomCR 59

7. Shri S.V. Manohar challenged the order firstly on the ground that the complainant is a mere citizen of Pusad and a stranger to the co-operative field and had no locus standi to file the complaint as no harm was occasioned to his mind, body or reputation by the alleged cheating and thus if anybody was competent to complain about the said cheating it was the Co-operative Society Karla-Mandikdoha and the Board of Directors. Secondly, on the ground of delay inasmuch as the elections of the Board of Directors were held in the year 1978 while the complaint was filed on 24th May, 1984 i.e. after a period of six years without explaining the inordinate delay and, therefore, on the ground of delay along no cognizance should have been taken by the complainant of the complaint and lastly that the allegations in the complaint do not make out a prima facie case for the offences under sections 420, 468 and section 477-A of the Indian Penal Code against the applicant.

8. So far as the first ground is concerned, suffice it to say that in all the prosecutions, the State is the prosecutor and when a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence on a complaint under section 190(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code, it is in the interest of the public at large. That is why any one can put the criminal law in motion, unless the statute prescribes for an eligibility of the complainant as can be gathered from the provisions contained in sections 195 to 199 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In A.R. Anthulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak andanother, , while upholding the cognizance taken by a Special Judge on a private complaint about the offences committed by a public servant as enumerated in section 6(1)(a) and (b) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 46 to 52, the Supreme Court observed that locus-standi of the complainant is a concept foreign to criminal jurisprudence, save and except that where the statue creating an offence provided for the eligibility of the complainant by necessary implication the general principle gets excluded by such statutory provisions. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court then referred to sections 195 to 199 of the Criminal Procedure Code and observed that these specific provisions clearly direct that in the absence of any such statutory provisions a locus-standi of the complainant is a concept foreign to Criminal Law Jurisprudence.

9. The offence in the instant case i.e. the offences under section 420 and sections 468 and 477-A do not by any provisions of law require that a complaint has to be filed by a person aggrieved by the said offences and by no other. The first ground, therefore, that the complainant a stranger to the co-operative field and a layman could not have filed a complaint does not, therefore, merit any serious consideration and has to be rejected.

10. In this connection, it was further contended that the complainant was not cheated by the accused and that, therefore, having regard to the definition of cheating the complainant could not have complained about the offence under section 420 for want of damage or harm to his mind, body, reputation or property. The offence of cheating takes place when a deception is practised on any person, not necessarily the complainant, causing harm to the person deceived in body, mind, reputation or property. On the allegation in the complaint a definite harm was caused to the reputation of the Co-operative Society Karla-Manikdoha when the accused posed to be it's member by practising fraud on the Society with the help of accused No. 1 and benefited by becoming a Member-Director of the District Central Co-operative Bank, Yevotmal, which position he would not have gained but for the fraudulent deception. This offence could be complained of by any person not directly connected with the affairs of the aforesaid society or the bank, in the absence of any specific statutory bar.

11. In Madhadeolal v. Emperor, 1908 Criminal Law Journal Reports 342, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court has held that the prosecutor in criminal case in really the crown and the complainant merely sets the machinery of the Laws in motion, and, in a case of cheating it has been held therein that it is not necessary that complainant should have been the person deceived. In that case a Pleader was deceived by writing a letter of cancellation of contract and the complaint was filed by servant of a firm, which became aware of the deception. It was held that the accused was rightly convicted of the offence of attempt of cheating.

12. The definition of the word "complaint" occurring in section 2(a) of the Code of 1973 indicates that a complaint can be made by any person orally or in writing to a Magistrate with a view to his taking action under the Code that the some person whether known or unknown has committed an offence. The definition specifically excludes a police report in respect of commission of a non-cognizable offence where according to the definition the Police Report shall be deemed to be a complaint and the Police Officer making the report a complainant. There is, therefore, no doubt that the complaint of offence of cheating punishable under section 420, I.P.C. can be filed by any person to set the law in motion and that it is not necessary that such a complaint should be filed by only the person deceived.

Attached File : 732623389 2) shriram krishnappa asegaonkar vs state of maharashtra and anr. on 24 july, 1986.pdf downloaded 51 times
solve problems in criminal cases.



Regarding court cases particularly criminal cases you can find false hood in most of them. However to persue the PERJURY cases takes time and effort for which no body is ready to pay proper expanses to any advocate.


here i m posting the judgements again

Attached File : 86389224 binder 1 - 3.pdf downloaded 59 times



Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  


Search Forum:


  LAWyersclubindia Menu