INTHE MiGHCOURTOFCHHATTISGARMATBILASPUR Cr.M.P.No. ^t^ / 20M PETITIONER pA.w- (tresertsl a*.... Jaiprakash Shukla, S/o Late Shri G.P. Shukla, aged cibout 51 years, Ex. ^..••••••'^' C.E.Q.; Jttnpad Panchayat, •'''^;^£.^Lftl""<"'" Jaijaipur, R/o. Behind Scii Mandir, ^^ .T£sJ&'^<^Daganiya, College Ward, Raipur, .....^•r-\ Tahsiland District-Raipur(C.G.). RESPQNDENTS/ NON-APPLICANTS/ PRQPQSED ACCUSED Versus 1. Shivratan S/o Awadhram Chandi-a, Village Bhatmahul, Post - Pirda, Tahsil — Jaijaipur, Distri<st - Jdnjgir- ChampQ (C.G.) R.L. Rgtre, Advocate, R/6 JdijQipur, P.S. & Tahsil — Jaijaipur, Oistfict - Janjgir-Champd (C.G.). 2. CRIMINALMISCELLANEOUSPETITIONUNDERSECTIQN482 QFTHECQDE.QFCRIMiNALfROCEDURE ,' I:!! K tftii Si B s •;?sr •^iTqT^R, -®iriTm-s,f^roy . ^y-.nf.^.^lS/Z^^ a^wlyn^ wian^rwiiNi -. - -. _ L E,(i°<; ^Fif'ra^ VFT^i 4 fSV .'^i^fi •^ 'sRp'i sn^i "SB'TTIon'oie 5nrn8&nindra'Blo1ia]i~Sh7Jva5t5va,J. 02-11-2011 Shri S. C. Verma, counsel for| the appellant. Heard on admission. This petition has been filed Magistrate, learned counsel for thej Magistrate has committed gross ill ()y the petitioner aggrieved by order dated 16-09-2011, by which, complaint filed bythe petitioner has been dismissed by the learned Magistrate} Assailing the correctness ani|l validity of the order passed by the petitioner submits that the learned ^gality and pen/ersity in dismissing the complaint, even though, from th^ case of commission of offences al| Magistrate has drawn conclusion b^ created under Seetion 195(1) & (2) cjl taken, except in the manner and therein, learned counsel submitsl complaint is based, didnot require' and once it was specifically allegecj respondent made false statement any such procedure to be adopted in the Court proceedings that the for getting the bail cancelled, the learned Magistrate, in the larger int^rest ofjustice.ought to have taken cognizancein the matter. A perusal ofthe impugned or4 learned Magistrate has refused t(} consideration the averments of the are alleged. It has been held that wjiere offence relates proceedings in any Court of law or with regard to (jocuments filed therein, a separate complaint is not maintainable, but in reading of complaint, a prima facie eged is made out. As the learned recording that in view of the bar the Cr.P.C., no cognizance can be ollowing the procedure prescribed that the averments, on which, erdated 16-09-2011 shows thatthe take cognizance by taking into complaint and the offences, which view of the provisions contained in iwiwng—rs/140—2/2011—i,so,ooo. T5? ^TqRTO, '^iT.^FR', I^RTy: ss^wf^n^i •wiai^i'ann^ / Tumane sn^i 'vss'v (Tpf^^i; ? •S^iiwaittT an^i <L-' —SecGoiTTO5TI) 'S~^~5T\K5"V,TP^', bai] application, which has been wiferah SFraf '=? fs'CT •T??siCTit' ^- 3''!WS 311^1 concerned Court has not taken any |:ognizance on any such allegations nor any conclusion has been drawn |as to whether objection taken in the bail application was based on fal^e or fabricated grounds. On the aforesaid consideration, the complaiijit has been dismissed. A perusal ofthe entire connpl^int shows that the substance of the allegation is that the respondent sub(nitted false statement by submitting an application of objection in the ba| complainant alleges commission of| 120-B, 177, 182, 186, 191, 193, 194 and 211 of the IPC are made oift. Therefore, apparently fromthe contents of the complaint, what submission under an objection was s|ubmitted in the Court to oppose bail application. Apparently, the offenc^s alleged are those, which are covered under Clause (a) & (b) of sjjb-section (1) of Section 195 of the Cr.P.C., cognizance is prohibited ^xcept on thecomplaint in writing before the Concerned Court or publiit servant or the concerned Court as the case may be. Therefore, no dismissing the complaint in view of t>te bar created under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. However, the petitior|er would be at liberty to move appropriate application under Sectio|i 195 of the Cr.P.C., if so advised, and the manner prescribed in accordtince with law. With the aforesaid observatiorl it has also been recorded that the finally decided in that case, the 1 application and on that basis, the offence under Sections 107, 420, 195,196,199, 200, 203, 205,209 has been alleged is that, false illegality has been committed in , the petition stands disposed off. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge are-'cn WiigmitCT, (wrtsira—i's/i40—2/2011—i ,50,000. J^ BE=