Whoever, being legally bound to attend in person or by an agent at a certain place and time in obedience to a summons, notice, order, or proclamation proceeding from any public servant legally competent, as such public servant, to issue the same, intentionally omits to attend at that place or time, or departs from the place where he is bound to attend before the time at which it is lawful for him to depart, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both;
or, if the summons, notice, order or proclamation is to attend in person or by agent in a Court of Justice, with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
Illustrations
(a) A, being legally bound to appear before the High Court at Calcutta, in obedience to a subpoena issuing from that Court, intentionally omits to appear. A has committed the offence defined in this section.
(b) A, being legally bound to appear before a District Judge, as a witness, in obedience to a summons issued by that District Judge intentionally omits to appear. A has committed the offence defined in this section.
Author: ShadesOfKnife
IPC 173 – Preventing service of summons or other proceeding, or preventing publication thereof
Whoever in any manner intentionally prevents the serving on himself, or on any other person, of any summons, notice or order proceeding from any public servant legally competent, as such public servant, to issue such summons, notice or order, or intentionally prevents the lawful affixing to any place of any such summons, notice or order, or intentionally removes any such summons, notice or order from any place to which it is lawfully affixed, or intentionally prevents the lawful making of any proclamation, under the authority of any public servant legally competent, as such public servant, to direct such proclamation to be made, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both;
or, if the summons, notice, order or proclamation is to attend in person or by agent, or to produce a document or electronic record in a Court of Justice with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
IPC 172 – Absconding to avoid service of summons or other proceeding
Whoever absconds in order to avoid being served with a summons, notice or order proceeding from any public servant legally competent, as such public servant, to issue such summons, notice or order, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both;
or, if the summons or notice or order is to attend in person or by agent, or to produce a document or an electronic record in a Court of Justice, with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
Kapil Agarwal and Ors Vs Sanjay Sharma and Ors 01 Mar 2021
Apex Court quashed the FIR in this case, and u/s 210 CrPC, held as follows
From Paras 5 and 6,
Thus, as per Section 210 Cr.P.C., when in a case instituted otherwise than on a police report, i.e., in a complaint case, during the course of the inquiry or trial held by the Magistrate, it appears to the Magistrate that an investigation by the police is in progress in relation to the offence which is the subject matter of the inquiry or trial held by him, the Magistrate shall stay the proceedings of such inquiry or trial and call for a report on the matter from the police officer conducting the investigation. It also provides that if a report is made by the investigating police officer under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and on such report cognizance of any offence is taken by the Magistrate against any person who is an accused in the complaint case, the Magistrate shall inquire into or try together the complaint case and the case arising out of the police report as if both the cases were instituted on a police report. It also further provides that if the police report does not relate to any accused in the complaint case or if the Magistrate does not take cognizance of any offence on the police report, he shall proceed with the inquiry or trial, which was stayed by him, in accordance with the provisions of Cr.P.C.
Thus, merely because on the same set of facts with the same allegations and averments earlier the complaint is filed, there is no bar to lodge the FIR with the police station with the same allegations and averments.
6. However, at the same time, if it is found that the subsequent FIR is an abuse of process of law and/or the same has been lodged only to harass the accused, the same can be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution or in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In that case, the complaint case will proceed further in accordance with the provisions of the Cr.P.C.
Citations : [2021 SCC OnLine SC 154]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/97191348/
https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/kapil-agarwal-and-others-versus-sanjay-sharma-and-others
https://www.legitquest.com/case/kapil-agarwal-and-others-v-sanjay-sharma-and-others/1DA1F3
https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/tag/inherent-powers-of-high-courts/
Anil Kumar and 2 Ors Vs State of A.P. and Anr on 3 Apr 2019
Justice B. Siva Sankar Rao trashed the falsely-laid proceedings of Dowry and 498A IPC against the family members as there were no specific allegations made up on them and no supporting evidence collected by the Police.
6. There is no record even shown from the police charge sheet by collecting from father of de facto complainant as to any so called additional amount of Rs.4,30,000/- given out of his retirement benefits or 15 tulas of gold. It is crucial if at all to believe as to what were the retirement benefits he received and when from his account he parted with. There is no date or time even mentioned either in the report or from the police investigation to believe, leave about the fact that the so-called marriage performed, from the police investigation out of love affair between A-1 and de facto complainant against the will of the parents of the de facto complainant and the parents of A-1, who are A-2 & A-3 from the beginning agreed for the love marriage with no objection. Once such is the case, even the stray allegation of the petitioners/A-2 to A-4 used to abuse her as not of their caste or religion and if they marry another girl, they could get more dowry itself is unbelievable, for the very marriage is love marriage. Even to say that there was any instigation to A-1 by A-2 to A-4 for additional dowry when it is a love marriage and no dowry shown paid originally and as discussed supra of no any payment of dowry by father of de facto complainant after his retirement from his benefits alleged, the question of any payment of additional dowry is unbelievable. It clearly shows the petitioners/A-2 to A-4 are roped without any basis for reasons better known by the de facto complainant and the police investigation in this regard is also perfunctory and baseless and the legal position is very clear that unless from the specific allegations in the complaint against the other relatives of the husband, no cognizance can be taken against the family members, particularly from the tendency of making baseless allegations in roping them and even a stray sentence as suffered harassment in the hands of in-laws, etc., is not sufficient to sustain any such accusation to rope the other family members of the husband of the de facto complainant, so-called victim.
U.Surekha Vs State of AP on 04 Mar 2021
Relying on landmark judgment of Apex Court here, a Division bench of AP High Court comprising the Chief Justice held that the rule [Rule 5(2)(a)(i) of Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service Rules, 2007] which mandates 3 years of practice as requirement from Junior Civil Judge positions in State of AP was unconstitutional and the Notification issued on 03 Dec 2020 was set aside.
Another case got filed at Supreme Court here which was later withdrawn.
CrPC 406 – Power of Supreme Court to transfer cases and appeals
(1) Whenever it is made to appear to the Supreme Court that an order under this section is expedient for the ends of justice, it may direct that any particular case or appeal be transferred from one High Court to another High Court or from a Criminal Court subordinate to one High Court to another Criminal Court of equal or superior jurisdiction subordinate to another High Court.
(2) The Supreme Court may act under this section only on the application of the Attorney-General of India or of a party interested, and every such application shall be made by motion, which shall, except when the applicant is the Attorney-General of India or the Advocate-General of the State, be supported by affidavit or affirmation.
(3) Where any application for the exercise of the powers conferred by this section is dismissed, the Supreme Court may, if it is of opinion that the application was frivolous or vexatious, order the applicant to pay by way of compensation to any person who has opposed the application such sum not exceeding one thousand rupees as it may consider appropriate in the circumstances of the case.
CrPC 358 – Compensation to persons groundlessly arrested
(1) Whenever any person causes a police officer to arrest another person, if it appears to the Magistrate by whom the case is heard that there was no sufficient ground for causing such arrest, the Magistrate may award such compensation, not exceeding one thousand rupees, to be paid by the person so causing the arrest to the person so arrested, for his loss of time and expenses in the matter, as the Magistrate thinks fit.
(2) In such cases, if more persons than one are arrested, the Magistrate may, in like manner, award to each of them such compensation, not exceeding one thousand rupees, as such Magistrate thinks fit.
(3) All compensation awarded under this section may be recovered as if it were a fine, and, if it cannot be so recovered, the person by whom it is payable shall be sentenced to simple imprisonment for such term not exceeding thirty days as the Magistrate directs, unless such sum is sooner paid.
CrPC 250 – Compensation for accusation without reasonable cause
(1) If, in any case instituted upon complaint or upon information given to a police officer or to a Magistrate, one or more persons is or are accused before a Magistrate of any offence triable by a Magistrate, and the Magistrate by whom the case is heard discharges or acquits all or any of the accused, and is of opinion that there was no reasonable ground for making the accusation against them or any of them, the Magistrate may, by his order of discharge or acquittal, if the person upon whose complaint or information the accusation was made is present, call upon him forthwith to show cause why he should not pay compensation to such accused or to each or any of such accused when there are more than one; or, if such person is not present, direct the issue of a summons to him to appear and show cause as aforesaid.
(2) The Magistrate shall record and consider any cause which such complainant or informant may show, and if he is satisfied that there was no reasonable ground for making the accusation, may, for reasons to be recorded make an order that compensation to such amount, not exceeding the amount of fine he is empowered to impose, as he may determine, be paid by such complainant or informant to the accused or to each or any of them.
(3) The Magistrate may, by the order directing payment of the compensation under sub-section (2), further order that, in default of payment, the person ordered to pay such compensation shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period not exceeding thirty days.
(4) When any person is imprisoned under sub-section (3), the provisions of sections 68 and 69 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) shall, so far as may be, apply.
(5) No person who has been directed to pay compensation under this section shall, by reason of such order, be exempted from any civil or criminal liability in respect of the complaint made or information given by him:
Provided that any amount paid to an accused person under this section shall be taken into account in awarding compensation to such person in any subsequent civil suit relating to the same matter.
(6) A complainant or informant who has been ordered under sub-section (2) by a Magistrate of the second class to pay compensation exceeding one hundred rupees, may appeal from the order, as if such complainant or informant had been convicted on a trial held by such Magistrate.
(7) When an order for payment of compensation to an accused person is made in a case which is subject to appeal under sub-section (6), the compensation shall not be paid to him before the period allowed for the presentation of the appeal has elapsed, or, if an appeal is presented, before the appeal has been decided; and where such order is made in a case which is not so subject to appeal the compensation shall not be paid before the expiration of one month from the date of the order.
(8) The provisions of this section apply to summons-cases as well as to warrant-cases.
Remedies against Malicious Prosecution in India
After a long and exhausting prosecution for false allegations and claims in Indian Courts (making good use of remedies available against/with Police and Courts) resulting in favorable decisions, you may want to make good of the following remedies available in law across various forums.
Civil-side Remedies (SEEKING COMPENSATION from the malicious prosecutor)
Criminal-side Remedies
SEEKING COMPENSATION from the malicious prosecutor:
- Those (accused persons) who were maliciously prosecuted for alleged criminal offences, can seek Compensation for accusation without reasonable cause u/s 250 CrPC.
- Those (accused persons) who were maliciously arrested for alleged criminal offences, can seek Compensation (maximum of Rs.1000/-) for accusation without reasonable cause u/s 358 CrPC.
- Those who were forced to litigate frivolous Transfer petitions at Supreme Court, can seek Compensation (maximum of Rs.1000/-) u/s 406(3) CrPC.
- Those who were forced to litigate frivolous Transfer petitions at High Court, can seek Compensation (maximum of Rs.1000/-) u/s 407(7) CrPC.
- Those who were forced to litigate frivolous Transfer petitions at Sessions Court, can seek Compensation (maximum of Rs.1000/-) u/s 408(3) CrPC.
SEEKING PUNISHMENT for the malicious prosecutor:
- Those who were put to disadvantage by taking of bribes by public servants (including Police, Magistrates and Judges), can get a FIR registered under CHAPTER III Offences of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988
- Police Officers can be proceeded against under section 167 IPC for registering a false FIR or Charge sheet. Punishment is same as 498A IPC. 🙂
- Police Officers have to register a complaint against those who gave them false information, when the police file a charge sheet wherein from their investigation, either persons were removed/not charged in Charge sheet or certain sections were removed under section 182 or 211 IPC. Section 340 CrPC applies to these sections so the person who was listed in the FIR cannot himself file the complaint with Court but he can ask (via a simple letter to IO, then local SP/CP, then DGP; followed by couple of RTIs seeking progress/action taken at each stage). Since there is a time limit imposed on filing such complaint by Police (as per section 468 CrPC), it is better to act fast once the IO makes any removals from charge sheet. Of course, in appropriate case, sec 5 of Limitation Act can also be invoked
- Judicial Officers can be proceeded against under sections 217, 218, 219, 220 of IPC. No need of any 340 CrPC application for these offences. Direct Police complaint.
- Defamation u/s 499/500 IPC case laws here.
Remedies under Writ Jurisdiction of a Constitutional Court
- Under Writ of Mandamus, the affected person can claim compensation against the offender, over and above what is granted by statutory provisions.
- Classic case of Sri Nambi Narayanan here.
