IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.14815 of 2002 MD. RAHMAT ALI Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Prem Kumar Jha, Advocate Mr.Rajesh Kumar Jha, Advocate For the State: Mr. Suraj Prasad Singh, A.P.P. --- 5. 19.8.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. The allegation against the petitioner is that he scribed a deed of relinquishment by way of an agreement in favour of the complainant Md. Nizammuddin on 21.7.1995, but when the petitioner was giving his evidence in Title Suit No.6 of 1995 on 11.1.2002, he refused that the said deed (Ext.7/A) was scribed by him. It was, as such, alleged that the petitioner had made false statement and had given false evidence on oath in a proceeding and, as such, he should be prosecuted. The F.I.R. was registered under Sections 191, 192, 193, 420, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. Under the above allegations, the Court finds that accepting the allegations to be true, no offences under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code could be made out. As regards the offences under Sections 191, 192 and 193 of - 2 - the Indian Penal Code, unless there was a finding recorded by the competent Court, i.e., Subordinate judge-IV, Madhubani in the above noted Title Suit No.6 of 1995 that the petitioner had made a false statement or had given false evidence on record knowingly and intentionally, no prosecution of the petitioner could be initiated. Besides, in such circumstances, the Court could be the real authority which could be holding an enquiry under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and decided as to whether a legitimate complaint could be made or not. But, that contingency could be available to the Court of Subordinate Judge only when a judgment was to be rendered in Title Suit No. 6 of 1995 and finding of making false statement or giving false evidence on oath knowingly in a judicial proceeding knowing that the fact stated by him was not true could be recorded by him. That not being the position in the present case, the whole proceeding appears an abuse of the process of the Court and the same is hereby quashed by allowing the present petition. VPS ( Dharnidhar Jha, J. )