Cr.^.P. No.,35^008 Slngle Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice T.P. Sharma, Judge APPUCANTS 1. Pitamber Kodwani. aged about 46 years, S/o Late Shri Gu!!umai, 2. Ku. Parmeshwarl, aged about 32 years, D/o Late Shri Gu!!uma!, 3. Smt. Laiwanti, VVd/o Shri Teekamdas Lalwani, aged about 70 years All AppSlcants No.1 to 3 are R/o Saint Kawar Ram Chowk, Katora Taiab, Raipur (C.G.) 4. Smt. Radha, VV/o Shri Govindram, Aged about 5S years, R/o Sec. 1, Bajaj Colony, Rajendra Nagar, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 5. Smt. Mayadevi, W/o Shri Balchandra, Aged about 65 years, R/o C/o M/s Baichadra Hasmatrai Readymade Store, District Dhamtari (C.G.) Versus NON-APPyCANTS 1. Rajkishore Kodwani, aged about 33 years, S/o Shri Dhanraj Kodwani, 2. Dhanraj Kodwani, aged about 67 years, S/o Late Shri Guioma! Kodwani, Both N.A. Nos. 1 and 2 are R/o 287/2A, Saket Nagar, Post Habibganj, District Bhopai (M.P.) 3. District Magistrate, Dlstrict Raipur, Raipur Petition under Sectson 482 of the Code of Criminai Procedure, 1973 Present: Shri Satyendra Sahu, counsel for the applicants. None for Non-app!icants No.1 & 2. Shri G.D. Vaswanl, Government Advocate for the State/respondent No.3. .3-o L.-:- OBAL.ORDIR (Pasiid~orT30IrJinuar,/,20Q8) Thls is a petitlon under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") for quashing of the order dated 17-12-2007 passed by District Magistrate, Ralpur in Criminai Case No.04/2007 rejecting the application fiied by the petitioner under Sections 340 and 195 of the Code. 2. Facts necessary for decision of the case are, Revenue Case No.165/A-20(3)/2003-04 between the petitsoners and respondents No.1 & 2 was pending before Nazul Officer, Raipur. Statement of respondent No.2 was recorded on 30-10-2003 by Nazul Officer. According to petitioners, respondent No.2 has given false statement during course ofjudicial proceedings before Nazul Officer. 3. Appiication under Section 340 and 195 of the Code was tiied before the District Magistrate, Raipur. After hearing the parties, the application was rejected. 4. Petitioners had tried to impeach the order impugned on the ground that District Magistrate was duty bound to make complaint before competent Court against respondents No.1 & 2 for the offence of faise evidence in judiciai proceedings. 5. The petition was opposed by learned counse! for the non- applicants. 6. Heard counsel for the partles. 7. The onty question for decislon is, whether iearned District Magistrate committed any irregularity by not proceeding under Section 340 of the Code. According to the petitioners, respondent No.2 gave false statement before Revenue Officer. Section 195 of the Code dealing with taking of cognizance by the court relating to offence committed in the course ofjudicial proceedings, reads as foiiows: "S. 195. (1) No Court shall take cognizance- \^ @ - I, ) (a)(i) of any oftence punishabie under Sections 172 to 188 (both Inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of1860),or (il) of any abetment of, or attempt to commlt, such offence, or (iii) of any criminal consplracy to commit such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public sen^ant concerned or of some other pubtic servant to whom he is administratlvely subordlnate; (b)(i) of any offence punishabie under any of the foiiowing section of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely Sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alSeged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or (ii) of any offence described in Section 463, or punishable under Section 471, Section 475 or Section 476, of the said Code, when such offence is atleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding io any Court, or (ili) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in sub-ciause (i) or sub-clause (11), *[except on the complaint in v^riting of that Court or by such officer of the Court as that Court may authorize in writing in this behalf, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate.j (2) VVhere a complaint has been made by a public sen/ant under Ciause (a) of sub-section (1) any authority to which he is administrativeiy subordinate may order the withdrawal of the complaint and send a copy of such order of he Court; and upon its receipt by the Court, no further proceedings shail be taken on the complaint: Provided that no such withdrawai shali be ordered if the triai in the Court offirst instance has been conctuded. (3) In Clause (b) of sub-section (1), the term "Court" means a Civii, Revenue or Criminal Couri:, and includes a tribunai ^ constituted by or under a Central, Provincia! or State Act if dectared by that Aot to be a Court for the purposes of this section. (4) For the purposes of Clause (b) of sub-sectjon (1), a Court shaii be deemed to be subordinate to the Court to which appeats ordinarily iie from the appeaiable decrees or sentences of such former Court, or in the case of a Civil Court from whose decrees no appeal ordinarily lies, to the principaj Court having ordinary originat civi! jurisdiction within whose local jurisdiction such Civii Court is situate: Provided that- (a) where appeals lie to more than one Court, the Appellate Court of inferior jurisdiction shail be the Court to which such Court shalt be deemed to be subordinate; (b) where appeals lie to a Civil and also to a Revenue Court, such Court shail be deemed to be subordinate to the CMI or Revenue Court according to the nature ot' the case or proceeding in connection with which the offence is alieged to have been committed." 7. The Revenue Courts are Court within the meanlng of Section 195 oftheCode. Ciause (b) of sub-ciause (1) of Section 195 specifies the class of offences for which speciai procedure is provided which includes Section 193 to 196 of the Indian Penai Code which are of Intentionally giving fatse evidence or fabricated false evidence in judicia! proceedings. No posltive finding has given by Nazul Officer or District Magistrate relating to false evidence given by respondent. 8. Only assumption of the petitioners that respondent No.2 has given faise statement in judicial proceedings is not sufficient for proceeding under Section 340 of the Code. Evidence adduced by any party may be not trustworthy they may be accepted by Court to be true or not? Law does not contemplate criminai prosecution in all the instances where the evidence has been assessed to be not trustworthy. Order of learned District Magistrate does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. Consequently, the petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge Kvr