KAMLA PRASAD SINGH versus HARI NATH SINGH & ANR.

KAMLA PRASAD SINGH versus HARI NATH SINGH & ANR.

A private complaint is barred under section 195 Cr.P.C. in cases where the alleged offence falls within section 192 strictly relating to fabrication of false evidence for use in judicial proceedings, as in the case of the Ahlmad and his alleged abettor. In contrast, offences under section 218 IPC, involving...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Kamla Prasad Singh; Respondent: Hari Nath Singh; Co Accused: Mangla Prasad Pandey (Ahlmad); Co Accused: Ramchander (Lekhpal); Co Accused: Ram Samravlal (Lekhpal)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
27 April 1967
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal Against Allahabad High Court's Order Quashing Proceedings on Private Complaint
Outcome
Appeal No. 244 dismissed. Appeals Nos. 245-246 allowed.
Legal Topics
Cognizance of Offences by Courts, Fabricating False Evidence, Preparation of False Record by Public Servants, Abetment, Private Complaints, Bar Under Section 195 Cr.p.c.
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Cognizance of Offences by Courts Fabricating False Evidence Preparation of False Record by Public Servants Abetment Private Complaints Bar Under Section 195 Cr.p.c.

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kamla Prasad Singh

Appellant

Hari Nath Singh

Respondent

Mangla Prasad Pandey (Ahlmad)

Co Accused

Ramchander (Lekhpal)

Co Accused

Ram Samravlal (Lekhpal)

Co Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal Against Allahabad High Court's Order Quashing Proceedings on Private Complaint

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a private complaint is barred in respect of offences alleged under section 218 IPC against public servants and abettors due to section 195 Cr.P.C.
  2. 2 Whether fabrication of false evidence by a public servant (Ahlmad) falls under section 192 IPC and is therefore covered by the bar of section 195 Cr.P.C.
  3. 3 Whether intentional preparation of a false record by public servants (Lekhpal) intended to cause injury or save any person or property falls under section 218 IPC and is not covered by the bar of section 195 Cr.P.C.

Ratio Decidendi

A private complaint is barred under section 195 Cr.P.C. in cases where the alleged offence falls within section 192 strictly relating to fabrication of false evidence for use in judicial proceedings, as in the case of the Ahlmad and his alleged abettor. In contrast, offences under section 218 IPC, involving intentional preparation of false records by public servants (such as Lekhpals) for purposes other than judicial proceedings, can be privately prosecuted since section 195 Cr.P.C. does not bar such complaints.

Court Disposition

Appeal No. 244 dismissed. Appeals Nos. 245-246 allowed.

Orders

  • Case against Hari Nath Singh of abetment of Ahlmad's act cannot proceed on private complaint; criminal appeal No. 244/1964 dismissed.
  • Cases against Hari Nath Singh and Lekhpals (under s.218 IPC) may proceed on private complaint; criminal appeals Nos. 245-246/1964 allowed and cases remanded to the court of first instance for trial according to law.