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