HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.P. No. 7396 of 2008 DATED: 25.11.2011 Between: E. Narayanappa .. Petitioner/ A1 And The State of A.P. .. Respondent O R D E R:- This Criminal Petition is ﬁled under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings in Calendar Case No. 215 of 2006 on the ﬁle of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Railway Court, KoduruKadapa District, registered for oﬀence punishable under Section 177 IPC so far as the petitioner i.e. A1 in the criminal case is concerned on the ground that he presented false death certiﬁcate of A2 issued by the Sarpanch of Modugulapalem Gram Panchayat, Yerpedu Mandal, Chittoor District (A2 herein), before the trial Court in a diﬀerent calendar case i.e. C.C. No. 120 of 2001, and basing on the death certiﬁcate of A2 in that case, that case against A2 was abated on 27.01.2004, but subsequently i.e. on 06.10.2004, A2 appeared before the trial Court along with his counsel and represented that he was alive, by reason of which only it was found that false certificate of A2 was filed in that case by A1 herein. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner (A1) that much emphasis is to be given to the fact that the death certiﬁcate of A2 (in the other case) which was issued by the Sarpanch of Modugulapalem, was only presented by A1 herein in the other Case before the trial Court, and therefore, no criminal liability can be attributed to A1 herein, and further, in any case the procedures incorporated in Sections 195 and 340 Cr.P.C. were not followed, and hence, the cognizance of the case taken up by the Magistrate is not tenable. Therefore, it is to be seen whether suﬃcient grounds are there in order to quash the proceedings in the Calendar Case on hand. It is necessary to extract the impugned order dated 06.10.2004 which reads as follows: “Now, A2 present. On 27.01.2004, the Forester E.Narayanappa ﬁled a Memo in the Court that A2 died about 4 years back, and a certiﬁcate was issued by the Sarpanch, Y.Rangaiah. Today A2 was produced by one of the faculty by name Muni Reddy. Hence, A2 was added as an accused in this case and issued show cause notice to the Forester - Narayanappa and Sarpanch - Y.Rangaiah as to why action should not be taken against you for ﬁling false information in this Court and dishonestly cheating the Court by ﬁling false certificate. Call on 27.10.2004.” There is no dispute that A2 in that case is alive and subsequent to the ﬁling of his death certiﬁcate on 06.10.2004, he appeared before the Court and represented that he was alive following which the impugned order was passed by the learned Magistrate. It is to be noted whether the order is sustainable or not with reference to the provisions of Sections 195 and 340 Cr.P.C. and also with reference to the allegations made against A1. Section 195 (a)(i) Cr.P.C. provides “No Court shall take cognizance - a) (i) of any oﬀence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate;” Section 340 Cr.P.C. reads as follows: Procedure in cases mentioned in Section 195 – (1) When upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made into any oﬀence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary, - (a) record a finding to that effect; (b) make a complaint thereof in writing; (c) send it to a Magistrate of the First Class having jurisdiction; (d) take suﬃcient security for the appearance for the accused before such Magistrate, or if the alleged oﬀence is non-bailable and the Court thinks it necessary so to do send the accused in custody to such Magistrate; and (e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate. (2) The power conferred on a Court by sub- section (1) in respect of an oﬀence may, in any case where that Court has neither made a complaint under sub-section (1) in respect of that oﬀence nor rejected an application for the making of such complaint, be exercised by the Court to which such former Court is subordinate within the meaning of sub-section (4) of Section 195. (3) A complaint made under this section shall be signed,- (a) where the Court making the complaint is a High Court, by such oﬃcer of the Court as the Court may appoint; (b) in any other case, by the presiding oﬃcer of the Court. (4) In this section, “Court: has the same meaning as in Section 195.” From the above noted provisions of law, it is very clear that by virtue of Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C., unless a written complaint was given by such public servant before the Court concerned, no cognizance of the oﬀences punishable under Sections 172 to 188 IPC should be taken, and further, by virtue of Section 340 Cr.P.C., there should be a record of ﬁndings with regards to giving false document before the Courts and making of complaint thereof in writing and sending it to a Judicial Magistrate of First Class having jurisdiction to entertain the matter and taking sufficient security for the appearance of accused. The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a decision reported in M.S. Ahlawat v. State of Haryana[1] in this context, wherein the Apex Court observed: “Chapter XI IPC deals with “false evidence and oﬀences against public justice” and Section 193 occurring therein provides for punishment for giving or fabricating false evidence in a judicial proceeding. Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC) provides that where an act amounts to an oﬀence of contempt of the lawful authority of public servants or to an oﬀence against public justice such as giving false evidence under Section 193 IPC etc. or to an oﬀence relating to documents actually used in a Court, private prosecutions are barred absolutely and only the court in relation to which the oﬀence was committed may initiate proceedings. Provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C. are mandatory and no court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of any of the oﬀences mentioned therein unless there is a complaint in writing as required under that section. It is settled law that every incorrect or false statement does not make it incumbent upon the court to order prosecution, but (sic) to exercise judicial discretion to order prosecution only in the larger interest of the administration of justice. Section 340 Cr.P.C. prescribes the procedure as to how a complaint may be preferred under Section 195 Cr.P.C. While under Section 195 Cr.P.C. it is open to the court before which the oﬀence was committed to prefer a complaint for the prosecution of the oﬀender, Section 340 Cr.P.C. prescribes the procedure as to how that complaint may be preferred. Provisions under Section 195 Cr.P.C. are mandatory and no court can take cognizance of oﬀences referred to therein (sic). It is in respect of such oﬀences the court has jurisdiction to proceed under Section 340 Cr.P.C. and a complaint outside the provisions of Section 340 Cr.P.C. cannot be ﬁled by any civil, revenue or criminal court under its inherent jurisdiction. From a perusal of the order impugned, it is very clear that the procedures contemplated under Sections 195 (1)(a)(i) and 340 Cr.P.C. were not followed by the learned Magistrate, and consequently, the impugned order is not tenable, however taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, its ﬁnding will not preclude him from proceeding with the case as per law. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed subject to the observations made above. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J 25.11.2011 bcj [1] 2000 SCC (Crl.) 193