T K SUBRAMANIAM Vs. CHIDAMBARANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGAINST the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem, dated 20th December, 1978, discharging the respondent herein under section 245 (1), Criminal Procedure C"de, the above criminal revision has been filed.

(2.) IT appears from the facts of the case that the respondent was the Sub-Inspector of Police, Mettur. He filed C.C. No. 839 of 1975 against the petitioner and others under sections 506 (II) and 148,Indian Penal Code, alleging that the petitioner herein attempted to beat the respondent with a tyre lever of a motor car by throwing it on the respondent and that the petitioner had also instigated his men to finish the respondent. C.C.No. 839 of 1975 filed by the respondent herein was hotly contested by the petitioner herein, with the result, petitioner was acquitted on 23rd April, 1976. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a private complaint against the respondent under section 190, 211, Indian penal Code, before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Salem, which was subsequently transferred to the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court and numbered as C.C No. 131 of 1978.

(3.) THE respondent, on receipt of notice filed an application, Criminal M. P. No. 797 of 1978 regarding the maintainability of the case against him. He contended that the petitioner ought to have filed a complaint against the respondent, on the allegation alleged, within three years from the date of knowledge of the falsity of the complaint, that the petitioner, having kept quiet for a period of more than three years, cannot now file the present complaint against the respondent for the alleged false charge under section 211, Indian Penal Code, and hence, the case filed against the respondent by the petitioner after the lapse of so raany years was a motivated one and is statutorily barred and has to be dismissed. THE respondent further contended in his petition that, in regard to the alleged false charge which is alleged to have been made in or in relation to the proceedings in a Court, a complaint from the Magistrate is necessary to prosecute the respondent and that, in the absence of such complaint from the Magistrate to prosecute the respondent, no cognizance of any complaint levelled by the petitioner can be taken against the respondent under section 195 (L), Criminal Procedure Code. It was further averred by the respondent that there is no specific finding by the Magistrate in his judgment in C. C. No. 839 of 1975 that the respondent has falsely charged the petitioner, but, on the contrary, the acquittalof the petitioner in the aforesaid case was based on the ground that the case against the petitioner was not proved by letting in sufficient evidence. Thus, the respondent prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.