THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.5769 of 2008 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings in C.C.No.389 of 2008 on the file of XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad registered under Sections 120-B, 193 and 196 I.P.C. The petitioner is the accused No.1 and the 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant in the calendar case. For convenience sake, I refer the parties as they are arrayed before the lower Court. The facts, which led to the filing of the complaint, are as follows: Admittedly, at the instance of the 3rd accused i.e., the husband of the de facto complainant, one surveillance report dated 09.04.2007 was given by the 2nd accused while he was working in Globe Detective Agency Private Limited and another surveillance report dated 08.08.2007 was given by him while he was working with the 1st accused with regards to the conduct of the de facto complainant. It is the claim of the de facto complainant that the allegations made there under are nothing but false and those reports were filed by the 3rd accused in a matrimonial case at Chennai, Tamil Nadu filed by him for divorce against the complainant and thereby he is liable for contempt of Court and hence, the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 193 and 196 I.P.C. There is no record to show as to what happened to the divorce case filed before the Court at Chennai. There is also no basis to say as to in what way the reports were used in that case. Further, it is important that it is not a case where any complaint was given at the Court at Chennai for the purpose of punishing the accused for the said offences. Significantly, the calendar case was filed before the trial Court only on the ground of using the surveillance reports by the Court at Chennai. Section 195 Cr.P.C. reads as under: “Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence.- 1) No Court shall take cognisance – (a) (i) of any offence punishable under Secs. 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or (ii) of any abetment, or attempt to commit, such offence, or (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate; (b) (i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely, Secs. 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceedings in any court, or (ii) of any offence described in Sec. 463, or punishable under Sec. 471, Sec. 475 or 476 of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court, or (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (ii), except on the complaint in writing of that Code, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate. (2) Where a complaint has been made by a public servant under Cl. (a) of sub-section (1) any authority to which he is administratively subordinate may order the withdrawal of the complaint and send a copy of such order to the Court; and upon its receipt by the Court, no further proceedings shall be taken on the complaint: Provided that no such withdrawal shall be ordered if the trial in the Court of first instance has been concluded. (3) In Cl. (b) of sub-section (1) the term “Court” means a civil, revenue or criminal court, and includes a tribunal constituted by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act if declared by that Act to be a court for the purposes of this section. (4) For the purposes of Cl. (b) of sub-section (1), a court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the appealable decrees or sentences of such former Court, or in the case of a civil court from whose decrees no appeal ordinarily lies, to the principal Court having ordinary original civil jurisdiction within whose local jurisdiction such Civil Court is situate: Provided that- (a) where appeals lie to more than one Court, the appellate Court of inferior jurisdiction shall be the Court to which such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate; (b) where appeals lie to a civil and also to a revenue court, such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Civil or Revenue Court according to the nature of the case or proceeding in connection with which the offence is alleged to have been committed.” Clause b (iii) is very important as it provides that such a complaint should have been filed before the Court at which such offences alleged to have been committed whereas admittedly, no such complaint was filed before the Court at Chennai. At this stage, there is no basis to say that false surveillance reports were filed by the 2nd accused deliberately and with mala fide intention in collusion with the 3rd accused for the benefit of the 3rd accused before the Court at Chennai. Therefore, there is no sufficient material to prosecute the petitioner-accused No.1 and accordingly, the proceedings in the above said calendar case are to be quashed insofar as the petitioner is concerned. In the result, the petition is allowed. G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY,J Dt. 07.04.2011 lvl THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.5769 of 2008 Dt. 07.04.2011