IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Misc. Application (C-482) No. 783 of 2008 Amarjeet Singh S/o Rajendra Singh R/o 276, West Ambar Talab, P.S. Roorkee, Gangnahar K otwali Roorkee, District Haridwar. ...…………. Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand Through Secretary Home 2. Ranjeet Singh S/o Dr. Raghunath Singh 3. Sarjeet Singh S/o Dr. Raghunath Singh Both respondents No. 2 and 3 R/o 276, West Ambar Talab, P.S. Roorkee Gangnahar, Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar. ...…………. Respondents Mr. S.K. Shandilya, Advocate, with Mr. B.B. Sharma, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Mrs. Mamta Bisht, Asstt. Govt. Advocate, present for the State. Mr. Manish Arora, Advocate, present for respondents No. 2 and 3. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 2) By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has sought quashing of the order dated 31.08.2004, passed by Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, in Criminal Complaint 2 Case No. 602 of 2004, Amarjeet Singh Vs. Ranjeet Singh and others, relating to offence punishable under Section 193 of I.P.C., registered at police station Kotwali Gangnahar Roorkee, District Haridwar. 3) Brief facts of the case are that some proceedings were pending between the petitioner and respondents No. 2 and 3 before the revenue court in which a document is said to have been filed and relied by respondents No. 2 and 3. In the impugned criminal complaint the petitioner wanted prosecution of respondent No. 2 and 3, relating to offence punishable under Section 193 of I.P.C. i.e. relating to punishment for giving false evidence. The Magistrate, after recording statement of the complainant under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., summoned the accused (respondents No. 2 and 3) vide its order dated 12.06.2004, passed in the criminal complaint. The accused filed objections stating that the criminal complaint by private party was not maintainable in the matter. The trial court vide impugned order dated 31.08.2004, allowed the objections, and set aside the summoning order passed by it on 12.06.2004. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial court has no power to recall a summoning order. Reliance is placed in the case of Adalat Prasad Vs. Roop Lal Jindal, reported in A.I.R. 2004 Supreme Court 46, in which the Apex court has held that the Magistrate has no power to set aside or recall the summoning order, passed by it under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. 3 5) In view of the above settled position of law, the impugned order dated 31.08.2004, is liable to be quashed. However, it is relevant to mention here that the Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, had wrongly taken cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 193 of I.P.C., on the complaint filed by a private person. Clause b(i) of Sub- Section (1) of Section 195 of Cr.P.C. provides that no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishment under Section 193 of I.P.C. when such offence is alleged to have been committed in relation to any proceeding in any court except on the complaint of the court. As such, this court is of the view that not only the impugned order is liable to be quashed, but the summoning order itself cannot be sustained. 6) Therefore, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is disposed of with the direction that not only the impugned order dated 31.08.2004 is quashed, but summoning order dated 12.06.2004, passed by Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, is also hereby quashed. The proceedings of the Criminal Complaint Case No. 602 of 2004, Amarjeet Singh Vs. Ranjeet Singh and others, in its entirety stand quashed. (Stay Vacation Application No. 913 of 2009 and Urgency Application No. 2521 of 2011 also stand disposed of). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. July 07, 2011. H. Negi