Mr. Kapil Krishna Goldar was the Tashilder of Vested Property Cell Madaripur. He lodged a complaint case in the Court of the Learned Magistrate, Madaripur in 2000 against accused Farida Begum and others. The allegation was that the landed property is vested property & the accused persons in connivance with each other created forged deed of purchase in their favour with an aim to grab the said property.
The Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence against the accused persons including the husband of accused Farida Begum, Abdul Majid Miah and issued process by way of warrant, pursuant to which Farida Begum and others voluntarily surrendered before the Court of the Learned Magistrate.
They were taken into custody. Thereafter, husband of accused Farida Begum. Abdul Majid Miah, as an accused died at Dhaka perhaps being psychologically suppressed. The Learned Magistrate on humanitarian ground released Farida Begum on bail. Challenging the entire proceedings the other co-accused of this case preferred a revisional application to the High Court Division on the ground that they had lawfully acquired the disputed property. The High Court Division discovered that criminal proceedings initiated by Kapil Krishna Goldar against Farida and others was not tenable under the provisions of law.
But what is done cannot be undone!
Such erroneous proceeding initiated against the accused caused humanitarian disaster to farida since she was languishing in the custody, her husband died at Dhaka.
We cannot be oblivious to the fact of this kind of humanitarian disaster caused to persons like the Farida simply by reason of erroneous proceeding. When such false cases emanate from public officers at their whim and caprice causing irreparable damage to the citizen becomes more pathetic.
Learned Magistrates perhaps here have a role to play. More than 70% criminal cases of our country are being filed just to harass innocent poor people. Though if a false complaint is made against any person, the aggrieved person can institute criminal proceeding u/s 211 of the Penal Code. This is punishable up to 7 years imprisonment, or with fine or with both. But in our social circumstances a victim never dare to file a case against his giant opposition. In such situation the concerned Court can suo motu take actions according to section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
What says Section 250 of Cr. P.C.? Against an allegation when the Magistrate is of opinion that the accusation is false and either frivolous or vexatious, he may give order of discharge or acquittal. The complainant may be asked to show cause why he should not pay compensation to such accused or to each or any of such accused. On satisfaction the magistrate can direct to pay compensation. Failure to pay compensation may also entail imprisonment.
Rationale of the section
The rationality of such compensatory provision is well perceived. The objectives are two fold; firstly to award by a summary order some compensation to the person against whom a frivolous or vexatious accusation is brought, leaving it to him to obtain further redress against the complaint, if he seeks it by a regular civil suit or criminal prosecution, and secondly, to deter persons from making vexatious and frivolous complaints. An order under S. 250 can be made, only when the Magistrate's order acquitting the accused shows that, in his opinion, the prosecution was clearly false and vexatious or frivolous. The term "frivolous" indicates that the accusation is of a trivial nature is 'trifling', 'silly' or without due foundation. The term vexation implies that the accusation is one that ought not to have been made is intended to harass or annoy the accused.
Who can be ordered to pay compensation?
The section applies to all persons who make complaints. Even the state or a municipal committee may be ordered to pay compensation under this section. A police officer making a report in a non-cognizable case is not exempt from liability under the section. The reason for exempting police officers from the operation of S. 250 in cognizable cases is that it is their duty to report cognizable offences to higher police officers and Magistrates and they should not be hampered in the performance of that duty by the fear of an action being taken against them under that section. It has been judicially settled that when a responsible officer in the honest discharge of his duties communicates to the proper authority the commission of any offence within his jurisdiction on the faith of the information given to him by his subordinates, it should not be presumed that he has acted falsely and vexatiously in the sense of S. 250 of Cr.P.C. or otherwise than in perfect good faith.
Our expectation
If our learned Courts carefully & regularly take initiative according to section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, though initially various problems may arise like multiplicity of cases but ultimately filing of false cases will be discouraged, mounting pile of cases will be decreased, victims will get compensation at least for their financial losses.
Amit Kumar Dey is Judicial Magistrate. Barguna.