Case Summary : ABDUL HAKIM KHAN CHAUDHRI V. EMPEROR

Author : AKASH KRISHNAN

Citation: AIR 1932 Cal 511

Bench: Mallik, J.

INTRODUCTION

Extortion can be defined as the practice of obtaining money or other things by the use of coercive measures. The punishment for the same has been laid out under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code as imprisonment for three years or fine or both.

Sections 182 and 211 of the aforesaid Code talks about making False Charges or accusations made with the intent of injuring the other person or with the intention of making a public servant use his powers to injure any other individual. These provisions clarify the fact that if a person being aware of the fact that the information is false and misleading and that there are no grounds for it to be true,  still makes a complain in that regard with the intention to injure the other party or make a public servant use his powers to injure the other party, then the person is guilty of an offence and may be subject to imprisonment or fine or both. The present case deals with the application of these provisions.

FACTS

Three individuals with the intent of prosecuting an Sub-Inspector for extorting money from them as bribery sent a petition to the Superintendent of Police of the District. The petition was typed by a typist from the Court of the District Judge and he is the petitioner in the present case. The prayer included in the petition requested protection of the individuals from the oppression of the SI. The Superintendent of Police sent in the Petition to the Magistrate for enquiry and a trial was conducted against the Sub Inspector where he was acquitted of all the charges.

The trying Magistrate thereafter, along with passing an order sent a complain to the present Magistrate against the 3 individuals and the Petitioner charging them for offences under Sections 182 and 211 of IPC.

ISSUE

1. Whether there was an intention to set criminal law in motion against the SI?
2. Whether the Petitioner is Liable under Sections 182 and 211 of IPC?

JUDGEMENT

When it comes to Section 182 of the Code, a complaint to the Magistrate shall lie from the Public Servant who received the complaint or his subordinate. In the present case the complaint was received by the SP and neither he himself nor his subordinates have filed a complaint for giving false information. Thus Section 182 is not applicable.

When it comes to Section 211, it is important to note whether the complaint was filed with the intent to bringing in Criminal proceedings against the other party. The prayer mentioned in the petition was only restricted to provide protection from the oppression and did not talk about initiating criminal proceedings against the SI. Thus, the complaint does not amount to giving False information under Section 211 of the Code.