1 Appln 4267-2010 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4267 OF 2010 Pundalik Annasaheb Deshmukh .Applicant V/s. Mrs.Usha Ravindra Bhutkar & ors .Respondents Mr.P.A.Deshmukh, Applicant-in-person, present Mr.J.P.Kharge, APP, for Respondent No.3 - State CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 23RD JUNE, 2011 P.C. . Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. This is an application for leave to file an Appeal against the concurrent findings of both the Courts below holding that the applicant had not made out the case of the offence punishable under Sections 107 & 193 of the IPC. The applicant is a party to the proceedings before the Civil Court, Karjat, District Raigad. He had filed 2 Appln 4267-2010 Misc.Application No.8 of 2008 in which notice had been issued to one Mrs.Usha Ravindra Bhutkar. The bailiff of the Court, who is arrayed as accused No.2 Arun Pilaji Dhumal had allegedly given a false report to the Court stating that Mrs.Usha Bhutkar used to go for her work in the morning and used to come back late in the evening at the instance of said Mrs.Usha Bhutkar. The applicant, therefore, filed a complaint before the Criminal Court complaining of commission of offence punishable under Sections 107 & 193 of the IPC by the two respondents. The learned Magistrate upon consideration of material before him dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. holding that it was necessary for the applicant to comply with the provisions of Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant preferred Revision Application before the Court of Sessions, Alibaug-Raigad, who also rejected the said application. This is how the 3 Appln 4267-2010 applicant is before this Court. 3. Since the applicant appeared in person and was not well conversant in law, he was asked to submit written arguments which he has done. The allegations in the complaint show that the grievance of the applicant is in respect of a false report given by the bailiff about service of the notice in proceedings before the Civil Court. This, according to the applicant, amounted to commission of offence punishable under Section 193 of the I.P.C. on abetment by Mrs.Usha Bhutkar, and therefore, she has been roped in by having re- course to Section 107 of the IPC. The applicant now states that the respondent Nos.1 & 2 were also liable for the offence punishable under Section 120-B by engaging in Criminal conspiracy to submit such a report. 4. Since the offence punishable under Section 193 of the IPC was committed in 4 Appln 4267-2010 relation to a proceedings before the Civil Court, as provided under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C., the Court could not have taken cognizance of such offence except on the complaint in writing of the Court or by such officer as the Court may authorize in writing to do so. Therefore, applicant's complaint was thoroughly untenable. The applicant seems to have lost sight of the fact that Section 195(1)(b)(iii) of Cr.P.C. also refers to any attempt. Conspiracy or abetment to commit offences specified in sub-Sections 1(b)(i) of Section, which includes Section 193 of the IPC. Therefore, conspiracy or abetment to commit such offence is also covered by Section 195(1)(b)(iii) of Cr.P.C. and consequently, such complaint by the applicant could not have entertained by the learned Magistrate. No error can be found in the order passed. Leave refused. Appeal dismissed. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.) 5 Appln 4267-2010