- (1.) K. L. Sharma, J. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the complaint filed by the Deputy Registrar, Allahabad High Court on 31. 9. 89 against the petitioner. Under Sections 191, 192, 193, 196, 420, 465, 468 and 471, IPC, Police Station Civil Lines, Allahabad registered as Criminal Case No. 7893 of 1989 in the Court of the C. J. M. , Allahabad and the summoning order dated 4-8-89 passed by the C. J. M. , Allahabad in the aforesaid complaint case and for quashing the order dated 25-7-90 passed by the III Addl. Sessions Judge, Allahabad dismissing the Criminal Revision No. 2 of 1990 Ram Jatan v. Deputy Registrar, High Court, Allahabad.
(2.) THE facts necessary for the proper appreciation of the controversy involved in this Writ Petition are stated as follows: According to the petitioner's case, he had filed case No. 10/137 against one Mahadeo and others in the Court of Consolidation Officer in which an order dated 28-11-75 was passed by the Consolidation Officer, Handia, Allahabad mutating his name in respect of the Khata Nos. 86,89 and 100 of Village Usmanpur, Pargana Kaha Tahsil, Handia, Allahabad. On 15-7-86 the petitioner moved an application under Section 52 (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act for giving effect to the order dated 28-11- 75 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Handia, Allahabad in his case No. 10/137. THE Consolidation Officer allowed this application ex parte on 6-9-86. As soon as the opposite parties came to know about this order, they moved an application on 18-9- 86 before the Consolidation Officer, Handia for setting aside the ex parte order dated 6-9-86 on the ground that it was based on a forged order. THE consolidation Officer held an inquiry and after hearing allowed the application of the opposite parties on 19-9-86 and set aside the ex parte order dated 6-9-86 by holding that the order dated 28-11-75 was a forged one. Against this order, the petitioner filed an application before the Consolidation Officer on 29- 9-86 for recalling the order dated 19-9-86 but the Consolidation Officer was pleased to reject this petition on 17-10-1986. This order has become final as it was not challenged before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation or the Deputy Director of Consolidation. However, against the same order dated 19-9-86 the petitioner also filed simultaneously a Revision No. 11 of 1987 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, who was pleased to set aside the ex parte order dated 19-9-86 and remanded the case by his order dated 24-12-87 to the Consolidation Officer to decide it afresh. THEreupon, the Consolidation Officer decided the same on 27-6-88. THEreafter the petitioner filed a Revision No. 443 of 1988 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation Allahabad challenging the orders dated 27-6-88 passed by the Consolidation Officer in Case No. 179 of 1986 under Section 52 (2), C. H. Act. This revision was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 23-9-88. THEreupon, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 1182 of 1988 in this Court challenging the orders passed by the Deputy Director of Consolida tion and the Consolidation Officer. This Writ Petition was heard and dismissed after hearing the parties by Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. P. Singh of this Court on August 10, 1988. THEreafter a Review Petition No. 17627 of 1988 was also filed by the petitioner against the order and judgment dated 10-8-88 rendered by Hon'ble M. P. Singh, J. But this review petition was summarily rejected. The opposite party Bindeshwari Prasad, Harishanker and Om Prakash filed an application in this Court on 8-5-89 praying that this Court be pleased to file a criminal complaint against Ram Jatan petitioner for his criminal act in forging the order dated 28-11-75 which he filed as evidence before the Consolidation Officer. On the basis of this application the Deputy Registrar of this Court dealing with such complaints examined the matter and put up his note before the Hon'ble M. P. Singh, J. and after obtaining order he sent the complaint against the petitioner Ram Jatan to the Court of C. J. M. Allahabad for the offences mentioned in the prayer clause of the present Writ Petition. The Chief Judicial Magistrate Allahabad took cognizance of the offence and issued an order summoning the petitioner Ram Jatan. Against this summoning order the petitioner filed a criminal revision in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Allahabad but this revision has been dismissed after hearing the parties. Thereupon, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. for quashing the summoning order passed by the C. J. M. , Allahabad and also for quashing the complaint proceed ings lodged by the Deputy Registrar, High Court Allahabad and the dismissal order of the criminal revision passed by the III Addl. Sessions Judge, Allahabad. This petition was heard by Hon'ble O. P. Jain, J. who held on 25-10-94 that this petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. is not maintainable, but on the application of the petitioner Ram Jatan, leave was granted to convert this petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. into a Writ Petition. Consequently the petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. was converted into the present Writ Petition under judgment. This Writ Petition has been contested by the opposite parties by asserting that the High Court has got jurisdiction to file a criminal complaint against the petitioner Ram Jatan.
(3.) I have heard Sri B. P. Singh learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri R. P. Srivastava learned Counsel for the opposite party as well as Sri H. R. Mishra learned Standing Counsel and perused the entire record including the record of the earlier Writ Petition No. 1182 of 1988. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the High Court does not have jurisdiction to lodge the complaint against the petitioner and as such the complaint sent by the Deputy Registrar of this Court to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad is liable to be quashed. He has strenuously read the provisions of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as the Code) which places a bar on the power of the Court to take cognizance of offences pertaining to contempt of lawful authority of public services and offences against public justice and offences relating to documents given in evidence. It is therefore appropriate that the provisions of Section 195 of the Code be and are hereby reproduced in whole: 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 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 of proceeding in connection with which the offence is alleged to have been committed.;