Page 1 Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.64 of 2017

(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No. 8184 of 2015)

Saloni Arora Appellant(s)

VERSUS

State of NCT of Delhi Respondent(s)

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.65 of 2017

(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No. 1908 of 2016)

J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1)S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 8184 of 2015 is filed against the

order dated 06.07.2015 passed by the High Court of

Delhi at New Delhi in Crl.M.C. No. 2447 of 2012

1

Page 2 whereby the High Court disposed of the petition and

directed the Registrar General of the High Court of

Delhi to make a formal complaint in terms of

paragraph 27 in Criminal Revision Petition No. 497 of

2008 for prosecution of the appellant herein under

Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

(hereinafter referred to as “IPC”).

2)S.L.P.(Crl.)No. 1908 of 2016 is filed against the

order dated 01.02.2016 passed by the High Court of

Delhi in Crl.M.A. No. 1775 of 2016 filed by the

Registrar General of High Court of Delhi in Crl.M.C.

No. 2447 of 2012 whereby the High Court modified its

earlier order dated 06.07.2015 and directed the

S.H.O., Police Station Anand Vihar, Delhi to make a

formal complaint in terms of the order dated

06.07.2015, in place of Registrar General of the High

Court of Delhi, who was directed to make a formal

2

Page 3 complaint for prosecution of the appellant under

Section 182 IPC.

3)Leave granted.

4)We herein set out the facts, in brief, to appreciate

the issue involved in these appeals.

5)These appeals arise out of criminal proceedings

(SC No 13/2007) pending in the Court of Additional

Session Judge, Delhi in relation to the offences

registered under Sections 120-B, 201, 302, 364 and

365 IPC against the accused on the basis of FIR No.

333/2006 PS: SPL. Cell.

6)In the aforementioned proceedings, the State

Prosecuting Agency sought to prosecute the appellant

for commission of an offence punishable under Section

182 IPC. The appellant, felt aggrieved of this action of

the prosecuting agency, filed an application for her

discharge on the ground that since no procedure as

3

Page 4 contemplated under Section 195 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as

“the Code”) was followed by the prosecution, the

appellant cannot be prosecuted for such offence.

7)The Trial Court, by order dated 25.05.2015,

dismissed the appellant's application and the order of

the Trial Court was upheld by the High Court, by

impugned order, by dismissing the appellant's

Criminal Misc. Application giving rise to filing of these

appeals by special leave by the appellant before this

Court.

8)Heard Mr. Ajay Choudhary, learned counsel for

the appellant and Mr. A.N.S. Nandkarni, learned ASG

for the State.

9)Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

and on perusal of the record of the case, and further

since the learned counsel for the respondent in the

course of his submissions fairly conceded that the

4

Page 5 impugned order is not legally sustainable on a point of

law and, in our view rightly so, we are inclined to allow

the appeals and set aside the impugned orders.

10)As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for

the parties on the strength of law laid down by this

Court in the case of Daulat Ram vs. State of Punjab,

(AIR 1962 SC 1206) that in order to prosecute an

accused for an offence punishable under Section 182

IPC, it is mandatory to follow the procedure prescribed

under Section 195 of the Code else such action is

rendered void ab initio.

11)It is apposite to reproduce the law laid down by

this Court in the case of Daulat Ram (supra) which

reads as under:

“There is an absolute bar against the Court

taking seisin of the case under S.182 I.P.C.

except in the manner provided by S.195

Crl.P.C.

Section 182 does not require that

action must always be taken if the person

who moves the public servant knows or

5

Page 6 believes that action would be taken. The

offence under S.182 is complete when a

person moves the public servant for action.

Where a person reports to a Tehsildar to take

action on averment of certain facts, believing

that the Tehsildar would take some action

upon it, and the facts alleged in the report

are found to be false, it is incumbent, if the

prosecution is to be launched, that the

complaint in writing should be made by the

Tehsildar, as the public servant concerned

under S.182, and not leave it to the police to

put a charge-sheet. The complaint must be

in writing by the public servant concerned.

The trial under S.182 without the Tehsildar’s

complaint in writing is, therefore, without

jurisdiction ab initio.” (Emphasis supplied)

12)It is not in dispute that in this case, the

prosecution while initiating the action against the

appellant did not take recourse to the procedure

prescribed under Section 195 of the Code. It is for this

reason, in our considered opinion, the action taken by

the prosecution against the appellant insofar as it

relates to the offence under Section 182 IPC is

concerned, is rendered void ab initio being against the

law laid down in the case of Daulat Ram (supra)

quoted above.

6

Page 7 13)Learned counsel for the respondent (NCT Delhi),

however, submitted that the State has, therefore,

made a fresh application in this behalf before the Trial

Court which, according to him, is still pending

consideration. Be that as it may.

14)We express no opinion on such application, if it is

filed by the State as, in our view, it has to be dealt with

on its own merits in accordance with law by the Court

concerned.

15)In the light of foregoing discussion, the appeals

succeed and are allowed. Impugned orders stand set

aside.

………..................................J.

[A.K. SIKRI]

.……...................................J.

[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]

New Delhi,

January 10, 2017

7