HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No.7765 of 2010 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash C.C.No.242 of 2010 on the file of the II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, in which, the petitioners are arrayed as accused for the offences under Sections 193, 415, 420, 34 and 120-B of IPC. The complaint was filed by the 2nd respondent herein by invoking the provisions under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 193, 415, 420, 34 and 120-B of IPC, basing on the complaint as well as the sworn statement given by the 2nd respondent. The brief averments of the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent are as follows: The 2nd respondent was arrayed as an accused in Sessions Case No.505 of 2003 on the file of the Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the trial of communal offence cases, Red Hills, Nampally, Hyderabad, on the basis of the complaint given by the 1st petitioner. The allegation made against him in the said complaint is that he outraged the modesty of the 1st petitioner and threatened her over phone. During pendency of the Sessions Case, a Criminal Revision Case in Crl.R.C.No.682 of 2006 was preferred by the 2nd respondent against the order dated 29.11.2004 made in Crl.M.P.No.517 of 2004 in S.C.No.505 of 2003 and the same was listed before this Court on 12.09.2007. When Crl.R.C.No.682 of 2006 came up for hearing, the counsel for the 2nd respondent therein (1st petitioner herein) has given a false statement before this Court that the trial in S.C.No.505 of 2003 has been completed and the case is posted for judgment. In fact, in the said Sessions Case, trial is yet to be concluded. Further, during cross examination in the Sessions Case, the 2nd petitioner herein deposed that “I am not a witness to the incident. I came to know about pendency of matter between P.W.1 and accused before the Human Rights Commission”. The said two facts necessitated the 2nd respondent to file the present complaint for the above said offences. Further, in the said complaint, the 2nd respondent relied on the following documents: a) Copy of Cr.R.C.M.P.No.2216 of 2005. b) Copy of Cr.R.C.No.682 of 2006. c) Copy of order passed by this Court in Crl.R.C.No.682 of 2006 on 12.09.2007. d) Copy of Memo filed by counsel for 1st petitioner herein. e) Copy of order passed by this Court in Crl.R.C.No.682 of 2006 on 14.9.2007. f) Copy of the counter filed by the 2nd respondent. g) Copy of order in Crl.R.C.No.1199 of 2005. h) Copy of order in Crl.R.C.No.2164 of 2005. i) Deposition of P.W.2 in S.C.No.505 of 2003. Apart from that, he has narrated his grievance in the complaint as follows: “I respectfully submit before this Court that the accused No.2 has given the false statement before the Sessions Court, the copy of deposition of accused No.2 also enclosed in the complaint for the kind perusal of the Court. I respectfully submit before this Court that accused Nos.1 and 2 both intentionally to harm me and mislead the Hon’ble High Court and Sessions Court given the false evidence in judicial proceedings. The accused Nos.1 and 2 both has deceived me fraudulently and induced me. The acts committed by accused Nos.1 and 2 damaged me in body, mind and reputation. The accused No.1 has given the false statement before the Hon’ble High Court that the Sessions Case No.505 of 2003 is posted for judgment is absolutely false statement which attracts clearly the offences of Indian Penal Code as stated supra in the complaint. The accused No.2 in the Sessions Case in the cross examination has also stated crystal clear words “I am not witness to the incident. In view of the above stated facts and circumstances, I once again humbly submit before this Court that the acts committed by accused Nos.1 and 2 clearly attract the offences as stated supra. I once again pray before this Court to punish accused Nos.1 and 2 for giving false evidence, cheating and forgery of record of Court in the interest of justice, fair play, equity and to meet the ends of justice.” Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the present complaint is abuse of process of law, the entire reading of the complaint does not disclose any offence, and no private complaint is maintainable in so far as the offence under Section 193 IPC, as per Section 195 Cr.P.C. It is further contended that the entire reading of the complaint filed before the Court does not even suggest an offence under Section 420 of IPC. On the other hand, the 2nd respondent appeared before this Court in person and contended that apart from the complaint of the 1st petitioner, some other case is also filed against him and they are false in nature. He further contended that filing of a memo by the counsel for the 1st petitioner amounts to an offence punishable under Section 193 of IPC and also the acts of the petitioners herein amount to offences punishable under Sections 415, 420, 34 and 120-B IPC. This Court heard the counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. Now, it is necessary to refer to Section 193 of IPC which runs as follows: “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 (1), 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 (2), shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation 1:- A trial before a Court martial is a judicial proceeding. Explanation 2:- An investigation directed by law preliminary to a proceeding.” A mere reading of the said section clearly indicates that the present complaint against the petitioners for an offence under Section 193 Cr.P.C. cannot be proceeded, except invoking of Section 195 Cr.P.C. The other offences, for which the petitioners are facing trial, are under Sections 415, 420, 34 and 120-B of IPC. Section 415 of IPC, which is an explanation, runs as follows: “Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat. Explanation: - A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this Section.” The ingredients of Section 415 of IPC are as follows: 1) Deception of any person. 2) (a) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person (i) to deliver any property to any person; or (ii) to consent that any person shall retain any property; or (b) intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property. In the definition of cheating there are set forth two separate classes of acts which the person deceived may be induced to do. In the first place he may be induced fraudulently or dishonestly to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property. The second class of acts set forth in the section is the doing or omitting to do anything which the person deceived would not do or omit to do if he were not so deceived. In the first class of cases the inducing must be fraudulent or dishonest. In the second class of acts the inducing must be intentional but not fraudulent or dishonest.” The aforesaid ingredients are totally not available in the present complaint filed by the 2nd respondent. Further, it is evident that the proceedings in S.C.No.505 of 2003 are still pending and no orders are passed by the Sessions Judge therein. Hence, at this stage, it cannot be adjudicated in the present complaint as to whether the evidence of the witness is true or false and the same has to be adjudicated by the competent Court. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the present complaint is abuse of process of law and the same is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and C.C.No.242 of 2010 on the file of the II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, is hereby quashed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed shall stand closed. _____________ RAJA ELANGO, J 30th August, 2011 cbs HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Criminal Petition No.7765 of 2010 (Allowed) 30th August, 2011 cbs