HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.4544 OF 2008 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 (For short, ‘the Accused’) under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking to quash proceedings in C.C. No.251 of 2008, pending on the file of the Court of IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, registered for offences punishable under Sections 193, 199 and 209 read with Section 34 I.P.C. 2. Whereas the Petitioners are the Accused Nos.1 to 3, the second Respondent is the Complainant in the above Calendar Case. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the Calendar Case. 3. The prosecution case brief is as follows : The accused No.1 is the owner of the premises bearing No.3-5-1089/1/F Ground Floor, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad, whereas the Accused No.2 is her father and the Accused No.3 is the G.P.A. holder of the Accused No.1. The Complainant is a tenant in the premises of the Accused No.1, who obtained the same on lease from her in the month of July, 1975 at a monthly rent of Rs.800/- p.m. All of a sudden, the Accused Nos.1 to A- 3 in collusion with each other and with a fraudulent intention filed a Rent Control Case No.325 of 2002 on the file of the Court of II Additional Rent Controller, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (For short, ‘The learned Judge’) making a false submission therein that except the leased premises Accused No.1 was not having any other house and she was taking voluntary retirement under Voluntary Retirement Scheme at Baroda and wanted to settle her rest of life at Hyderabad, though she was having a permanent residence at H.No.A33, Sankeshwara Society, N.R. Akashavani, Makarpura Road, Baroda. Hence, the Accused Nos.1 to 3 suppressing the fact gave false evidence before the learned Judge with an intention to evict the tenant from the scheduled premises situated at Hyderabad and finally succeeded in getting a false decree by making the said false claim and hence, the Accused Nos.1 to 3 are liable for the alleged offences. 4. The contention of learned counsel for the Accused is as follows : The Rent Control Case No.325 of 2002 filed by the Accused Nos.1 and 3 herein was allowed by the learned Judge and aggrieved by the same, the Complainant preferred Rent Appeal No.101 of 2007 before the Court of Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad and the same is pending. Subsequently, the Complainant also preferred Civil Revision Petition No.2156 of 2009 before this Court and it also appears that he preferred a Special Leave Petition (CC) No.12860 of 2011 before the Supreme Court, which was dismissed on 03-08-2011 with a direction that the Complainant should vacate the scheduled premises by 31st March, 2012 and hand over the vacant possession of the same to the Accused by then. As seen from the record, it is clear that absolutely there is no finding in any of those orders to the effect that the Accused made a false statement which would come within the purview of Section 195 Cr.P.C. and further in fact, no false evidence was given by the Accused in those proceedings and therefore the Complainant got no locus standi to file the complaint on the ground of giving false evidence by the Accused in the Calender Case for the offences punishable under Sections 193, 199 and 209 read with Section 34 I.P.C. 5. On the other hand, it is the contention of learned counsel for the Complainant that the alleged imputation against the Accused is true and therefore necessary trial is to be conducted to establish the offences charged against the Accused and hence the contentions raised on behalf of the Accused are not tenable. 6. Therefore, the points for consideration are : 1) Whether there is sufficient material to prosecute the Accused with regards to the said offences and 2) Whether the present Petition is tenable or not? 7. Section 195 Cr.P.C. deals with the question of Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence. By virtue of Section 195 Cr.P.C. Sections 193 to 196 and Sections 199, 200, 209, 211 and 228 I.P.C. come within the purview of the same provisions subject to complying with necessary formalities. Section 193 I.P.C. provides : “whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding, or fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; and whoever intentionally gives or fabricates false evidence in any other case, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall be liable to fine.” Section 199 I.P.C. provides : “Whoever, in any declaration made or subscribed by him, which declaration any Court of Justice, or any public servant or other person, is bound or authorized by law to receive as evidence of any fact, makes any statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, touching any point material to be object for which the declaration is made or used, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave false evidence.” Further, Section 200 I.P.C. provides : “Whoever corruptly uses or attempts to use as true any such declaration, knowing the same to false in any material point, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave false evidence. Explanation:-A declaration which is inadmissible merely upon the ground of some informality, is a declaration within the meaning of Sections 199 and 200.” Section 209 I.P.C. provides : “Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly, or with intent to injure or annoy any person, makes in a Court of Justice any claim which he knows to be false, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, and shall also be liable to fine.” 8. Admittedly, the Rent Control Case No.325 of 2002 was tried before the II Additional Rent Controller, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and it was allowed after scrutinizing necessary evidence judiciously. It is for that Court to give a finding as to whether any false evidence was got adduced by the Accused and whether necessary action was to be taken. Unless there is such a finding recorded by the learned Judge, the Complainant would not get any locus standi to file the Calendar Case on the ground of the Accused giving false evidence against him and thus defaming him. No Criminal Court can take cognizance of any Criminal case unless there is good basis to proceed with necessary trial in respect of any offence. Even though is claimed that the Accused in collusion with each other and with a fraudulent intention made false submission that except the leasehold premises the Accused No.1 was not having any other house and she was taking voluntary retirement under Voluntary Retirement Scheme at Baroda and she wanted to settle her rest of life at Hyderabad and she wanted to use the premises for her own occupation could not have been taken cognizance of in the absence of any such findings given by the learned Judge. 9. The circumstances of the case amply provide that only for the purpose of harassing the Accused and to get the possession of the scheduled premises at Narayanaguda, Hyderabad at any cost and continue further in the premises he made false accusations against the Accused. Further, continuation of the case is nothing but abuse of process of Law. Therefore, accordingly the proceedings are liable to be quashed. With the above observations, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the entire proceedings against Accused Nos.1 to 3 in the Calender Case No.251 of 2008, pending on the file of the Court of IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 16-09-2011. Dsh. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY 275 CRIMINAL PETITION No.4544 OF 2008 (Date.16-09-2011). Dsh.