Crl. Misc. No. M –682 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- Crl. Misc. No. M –682 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:- 6.8.2010 Narinder Kumar ... Petitioner Versus Bala Gupta ... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. P.K.Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R.L.Gupta, Advocate, for the respondent. Gurdev Singh, J (oral) The petitioner – Narinder Kumar has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court by filing this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') for quashing the complaint bearing No. 153 dated 12.8.2004 filed under Sections 190, 191, 192, 193, 196, 197, 198, 199 against him by respondent – Bala Gupta, the summoning order, order dated 3.12.2009 and the resultant proceedings. Facts, in brief, are that the respondent filed the above said complaint against the petitioner alleging therein that on 21.10.1999 he filed a civil suit for declaration and consequential relief of mandatory injunction, on the ground that the petitioner forged resignation letter and on the basis thereof issued letter dated 31.8.1999, which were null, void, fake, forged and fabricated documents. In that suit the petitioner appeared in the witness Crl. Misc. No. M –682 of 2010 (O&M) -2- box as DW – 1 and gave false evidence by stating false facts and those false facts were detailed in para No.3 of the complaint. After recording preliminary evidence the Judicial Magistrate passed the above said summoning order vide which the petitioner was summoned to stand his trial. The petitioner moved an application under Section 195 of the Code for dismissing the complaint on the ground that the Judicial Magistrate was not competent to take the cognizance of said offence. However, the Judicial Magistrate vide his order dated 13.12.2009, dismissed that application on the ground that he was not competent to review his own order. According to the petitioner on the basis of the evidence produced by him in the suit which was instituted against him by the respondent, the civil Court dismissed the same. The respondent preferred an appeal against that judgment, which was dismissed as withdrawn with permission to file a fresh suit, vide order dated 30.8.2004. Before the decision of that appeal itself the present complaint was filed. There is no ground for concluding that he made a false statement in the civil Suit. He further submitted that Section 195 of the Code is a bar to the maintaining of the complaint by the respondent and that Magistrate could have taken the cognizance of the offences mentioned in the complaint only on a complaint having been made by the Civil Court, before which the petitioner is said to have given false evidence. On notice of motion having been issued respondent put in appearance through his counsel. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. Crl. Misc. No. M –682 of 2010 (O&M) -3- It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that only allegation made in the complaint is that in the course of proceedings before the civil Court, the petitioner made a false statement. Therefore, the only offence which is made from the contents of the complaint is under Section 193 IPC. According to Section 195 of the Code the Judicial Magistrate was not competent to take cognizance of that offence on the basis of private complaint of the respondent and the cognizance could have been taken only on the complaint having been made by the Civil Court before which the alleged false statement was given. On the other hand, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that from the contents of the complaint not only the offence of giving false evidence is made out, but the offence of fabricating the evidence is also made out as per the Definition of Fabrication of Evidence contained under Section 192 IPC. Therefore, the Judicial Magistrate was competent to take the cognizance of that offence and the summoning order was correctly passed and the application moved by the petitioner under Section 195 of the Code was rightly dismissed. A bare perusal of the complaint annexed with the petition as Annexure P-4 clearly shows that the respondent wants to prosecute the petitioner for the offences under Section 193 and 194 of the Code as according to him the petitioner fabricated the evidence on the basis of which the civil Suit was contested and that while appearing in the witness box before the Civil Court, he made a false statement. According to Section 195(A)(b)(i) no Court can take cognizance Crl. Misc. No. M –682 of 2010 (O&M) -4- of the offences under Section 193 to 196 (both inclusive) IPC except on the complaint in writing of the Court before which the offences are alleged to have been committed or in relation to the proceedings of that court. Therefore only the civil Court before which the suit was filed by the respondent and before which the petitioner is said to have made false statement was competent to make a complaint. This complaint by the private individual is not competent. Accordingly, the above said complaint, summoning order, the order dated 3.12.2009 dismissing the application of the petitioner under Section 195 of the Code and all the consequent proceedings are ordered to be quashed. The petition is disposed of accordingly. August 6, 2010 (Gurdev Singh) tripti Judge