HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No. 3456 OF 2008 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the proceedings in R.P.No.68 of 2006 on the file of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar and consequently to set aside the order dated 08-9-2006 in CFR.No.6969 of 2005 passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mahaboobnagar. 2. The petitioner herein has filed the complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C against the respondents 2 to 4 herein for the offences under Sections 182, 191, 196 read with Section 211 of Indian Penal Code. The brief case of the petitioner is that he worked as a School Assistant in Christu Jyothi Vidyalayam at Mahaboobnagar since the year 1990. A-1 is the Head Master and Correspondent of the said school and he joined the school in the year 1993. Six months thereafter, he took signatures from the teachers for higher salaries and started paying less salaries to them. The complainant did not heed to his obnoxious proposal and refused to receive salary for the months of January and February 1994, as such A-1 bore grudge against him. The complainant applied for medical leave from 01.03.1994 to 30.04.1994 due to ill-health and reported to duty before expiry of the said leave as he recovered from ill-health, but he was not allowed to join duty till 23.04.1994. The complainant has reported the matter to the District Educational Officer by letter dated 03.05.1994. As the complainant was not allowed to continue in his service inspite of giving his joining report, he filed W.P.No.11040 of 1994 and interim directions were passed permitting him to join duty. During the pendency of the writ petition, the complainant was terminated from his services by order dated 23.11.1994. Thereafter, he filed another W.P.No.1031 of 1995, questioning the same and the said two writ petitions filed by the complainant against the management were disposed of holding that the management was not justified in refusing complainant to allow him to join duty by terminating his services and directed the management to reinstate him into his service with all service benefits. Challenging the same, the management preferred W.A.No.398 of 1997, which was dismissed at the admission stage. 3. In pursuance of the said orders, the petitioner gave joining report on 14.02.1997 and in reply, the Administrator Bishop gave him letter dated 15.02.1997 stating that joining duty of the complainant was subject to approval. On 17.02.1997, A-1 called the complainant to his office room by sending a word through A-2 and on such appearance, A-1 questioned as to why he has signed the attendance register without the approval of the A-2. Further, A-1 asked him to sign on two letters and when the complainant wanted to read the said letters before signing, A-1 rudely pushed the complainant out of the room and asked him to leave the school immediately. Thereafter, A-1 created a scene with the Bishop by planning A-2 and A-3 as witnesses asking the complainant to be present before him on 17.02.1997. Thereafter, A-1 gave a false complaint to the police against the complainant for the offences under Sections 447, 506 and 323 I.P.C. In the said case, the complainant was acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 506 of IPC but, he was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323 I.P.C and was released under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act. In Criminal Appeal No.19 of 2001, the Sessions Judge has acquitted the complainant and thereafter the complainant issued a legal notice to the Administrator/Bishop and A-1 for maliciously prosecuting him by making false complaint and creating false documents. The learned Magistrate has recorded the sworn statement of the complainant himself and one Mohd. Moinuddin and while taking cognizance of the case, found that the offences under Sections 182, 191, 193 and 196 read with Section 211 of I.P.C are barred under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the private complaint was dismissed. 4. Aggrieved by the same, the complainant has filed Criminal Revision No.68 of 2006 before the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar and the same was dismissed on the ground that the complaint is barred under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant has filed the present criminal petition for quashing the said orders. 5. Heard the petitioner/complainant in person and the Public Prosecutor. 6. The complainant has contended that the accused are not public servants, as such there is no necessity for lodging the complaint by a public servant concerned or by the Court as such not taking cognizance by the learned Magistrate is not justifiable. The petitioner has filed the complaint for taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 182, 191, 193 and 196 read with Section 211 of I.P.C. 7. Section 195(1)(a) of Cr.P.C., reads that, “No Court shall take cognizance (a)(i) of any offence punishable under Section 172 to 188 of I.P.C or (ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence, or (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned, or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. 8. Under Section 195 (1)(b) (i) of Cr.P.C., no court shall take cognizance: (i) of any offence punishable under any of the following Sections of I.P.C, namely, 193 to 196, 199, 200, 205 to 211 and 228, when such offence is alleged to have committed in; or in relation to, any proceedings in any Court, or (ii) except on the complaint in writing of that Court, or by such officer of the Court as that Court may authorize in writing in this behalf, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate. 9. Therefore, there is a clear bar under Section 195 of Cr.P.C for taking cognizance of the alleged offences mentioned in the complaint. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision rendered in State of Maharashtra and others Vs. Ishwar Piraji Kalpatri and others[1]. In the said case, the point that arose for consideration is whether the sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C given to prosecution for the offence under Section 5(1)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 is valid or not. The other decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is M.N. Damani Vs. S.K. Sinha and others[2] wherein the criminal proceedings for the offences under Sections 499 and 500 of I.P.C., are sought to be quashed and the Supreme Court held that the criminal proceedings should be allowed to continue or the same should be quashed, two aspects are to be satisfied. 1) whether the un-controverted allegations, as made in the complaint, prima facie establish the offence, and 2) whether it is qualified and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on S. Mohana Rao Vs. Sri Hanumanthu Rajagopala Rao and another[3]. In the said decision, the complaint filed against A-1 is sought to be quashed for the offence under Section 500, 357, 218, 196, 193, 109, 120-B read with 54 of I.P.C and the said petition was allowed holding that allegations made against the petitioner do not satisfy the requirement of Section 357 of I.P.C. Merely because 1st respondent was finally acquitted in the earlier criminal case. It cannot be said that the allegations made herein against 1st respondent are defamatory and no offence is made out against the petitioner under Section 500 of I.P.C. 10. The above said decisions relied on by the petitioner/complainant are not applicable to the case on hand. 11. There is a clear bar under Section 195 of Cr.P.C for taking cognizance of the offences alleged in the complaint. Hence, there is no reason to quash the orders passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge in R.P.No.68 of 2006 and consequently to set aside the orders passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate in CFR.No.69 of 2005. 11. In the result, the criminal petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, the same is dismissed. ______________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J July 01, 2011 SP HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No. 3456 OF 2008 July 01, 2011 SP [1] AIR 1996 SUPREME COURT 722 [2] (2001) 5 Supreme Court Cases 156 [3] 2006 (2) ALT (Crl.) 497 (A.P.)