- (1.) THIS writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to quash the impugned Judgment and order dated 21.5.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Saharanpur in Criminal Revision No. 450 of 2014.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the complainant Damodar lodged a complaint with the allegation that Shyam Singh, Karan Singh Raj Kumar, Meghraj, Dahar, who are the resident of Village Shimlan, Police Station Badagaon are very cunning persons and were always looking forward to harass the complainant. The father of the complainant were three brothers out of which Sukhbir being the eldest one was not married, as such, he had no issue. There was 21 bigha of land in the name of Sukhbir which the accused wanted to usurp. Although in the aforesaid land, the complainant, his brother and his mother had 1/2 share each because the father of the complainant had died. After the death of Sukhbir, the complainant filed a case to get 1/2 share mutated in his name in the consolidation court. When the same came into the knowledge of the accused, they committed fraud on the complainant and with a view to usurp the property of Sukhbir illegally with the connivance of Sandeep Chhawara and other witnesses prepared a false and fictitious unregistered will dated 18.8.2003 in their own favour and filed the suit to get the property mutated in their names. When the accused came to know that no proceedings can be initiated on the basis of the unregsitered will, they connived and collected some people of the village and entered into a compromise in which it was decided that half of the property of Sukhbir will be given to complainant, his brother and his mother and the remaining half will be given to the real brother of Sukhbir. This compromise was written and with the consent of all the parties, the witnesses signed on it and it was decided that this compromise will be filed in the consolidation courts. The complainant and his mother signed on the blank papers with the belief that it will be filed in courts. But, the accused have usurped the land of the complainant illegally due to which the complainant filed application in the competent court, which is pending. On 28.4.2012 at about 5 p.m. all the accused armed with lathi dandas came to the house of the complainant and threatened them to take back the case of the consolidation courts otherwise they would kill him.The complaint was filed by Damodar.
(3.) THE learned Magistrate, on perusal of the evidence on record and the statements of the witnesses and the complainant, summoned the accused persons Shaym Singh, Karan Singh, Meghraj, Dahar, Sandeep Chawara, Raj under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 386, 504, 506 I.P.C. Feeling aggrieved the applicants have filed this petition. It has been argued on behalf of the applicants that the complaint is hopelessly barred by the provisions of 195 Cr.P.C. Thus, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. Section 195 Cr.P.C. runs as follows: - "195.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 cognizance - (a) (I) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code,(45 of 1860) or (ii) of any abetment of, 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, sections 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 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 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 Court, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate. (2) Where a complaint has been made by a public servant under clause (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 clause (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 clause (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.";