IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application(C482) No. 559 of 2005 Kishori Lal Verma S/o Shri Joga Lal Verma R/o Bari Bagicha Almora, Tehsil & District Almora ……..…Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal/Uttarakhand 2. Chief Judicial Magistrate-Almora 3. Sessions Judge- Almora 4. Indra Singh Sardar, S/o Late Nirmal Singh 5. Ravindra Singh Sardar S/o Indra Singh Both R/o Bari Bagicha Almora Tehsil & District Almora. ..……Respondents Shri B.S. Adhikari, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Shri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder, present for the State. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this petition moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C,) 1973, the petitioner has sought quashing of the order dated 31.07.2004, passed by Chief Judicial 2 Magistrate, Almora, in criminal complaint case no. 215 of 2004 and order dated 16.06.2004, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Almora, in criminal revision no. 17 of 2004, whereby order passed by the Magistrate, has been affirmed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was tenant in the house of the respondent no. 4, Indra Singh Sardar. After sometime the relationship between landlord and tenant soured. It is alleged by the petitioner that the respondent no. 4, Indra Singh Sardar, to pressurise the petitioner, got made a false report at the Police Station which was registered under section 457, 380 IPC (crime no. 1809 of 2003). After investigation the police found no substance in said complaint, and submitted final report. On this, the petitioner filed a criminal complaint case no. 251 of 2004, Kishori Lal Verma vs. Sardar Singh & another, for their trial in respect of offences punishable under section 182 and 211 IPC (read with section 195 Cr.P.C). The Chief Judicial Magistrate, after recording statement of the complainant under section 200, and that of witnesses 3 under section 202 Cr.P.C, found that no case is made out for trial of the accused and dismissed criminal complaint under section 203 Cr.P.C, vide its order dated 31.7.2004. Aggrieved by said order the petitioner filed criminal revision no. 17 of 2004. After hearing the parties said revision was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Almora, vide impugned order dated 16.06.2004. Hence this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the parties submitted that both the courts below have erred in law in holding that no offence under section 182 IPC or that of one 211 IPC are made out. It is pleaded that there is no bar under section 195 Cr.P.C, in respect of offence punishable under section 211 IPC, when the offence is not committed before the court. Reliance is placed in the case of Sachida Nand Singh & another vs. State of Bihar (1998) 2 SCC page 493. 3. Undisputedly, a criminal case was registered at the Police Station in respect of offences punishable under section 457and 380 IPC, against the petitioner which resulted 4 in final report. In the opinion of this Court it is one thing that the evidence to constitute the offence lodged in the first information report is not sufficient to prosecute, and it is another thing that false evidence has been given to injure the person named in the criminal case. Section 182 IPC provides punishment for giving false information to public servant in order to cause him to use his lawful powers to the injury of any person. Section 195 of Cr.P.C, provides that no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under section 182 IPC, except on the complaint in writing by the public servant concerned. 4. As far as offence punishable under section 211 IPC is concerned, said section provides punishment for false charge of offence, made with intention to injure a person. To take cognizance in respect of said offence section 195 Cr.P.C, requires that no court shall take cognizance except on the complaint in writing by the court or the person authorized by the court. Chief Judicial Magistrate, after discussing the evidence, has found that no case is made out for summoning the accused. In the counter 5 affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no. 4 and respondent no. 5 before this Court, it is stated that the first information report of the offences punishable under section 457, 380 IPC was lodged by the one Deep Joshi and not by the respondent no. 4, as projected by the present petitioner. 5. In the above circumstances this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 31.07.2004, in criminal case no. 451 of 2004, and order dated 16.06.2005, passed by the Sessions Judge, Almora, in criminal revision no. 17 of 2004. 6. Accordingly, the petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C, is dismissed. Dt:17.05.2010 parul (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 6