- (1.) B. L. Yadav, J. This revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Crimi nal Procedure, 1973, (for short the Code), is directed against the order dated 22-2-85 passed by the Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Basti, allowing the revision and setting aside the order dated 1-6-84 passed by the Munsif Magistrate, Basti, in a case under Sections 467/468/419/420/120-B of the I. P. C.
(2.) A complaint, against Shamshul Haque and others the present applicants, was filed disclosing offence under Sections 467/468/419/420/120-B of the I. P. C. It was alleged that a document was filed in the Court of Naib-Tehsildar, Dumaria-ganj. The offence under the aforesaid Sections was committed by the applicants by the time the document remained in the court of Naib Tahsildar. But when the document was filed in the court of Naib Tahsildar, the village, where the plots in dispute were situate, has come under consolidation operations and a notification under Section 4 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1954, (for short the Act), was already issued- An application on behalf of the applicants was filed that as the complaint was filed before the court of Naib-Tahsildar and the offence was committed during the continuance of those proceedings, hence the complainant has got no authority under law to file the complaint against the applicants and the complaint was by Sections 195 (1) (b) and (c) of the Code. The learned Magistrate by order dated 1-6-84 allowed the application of the applicants and held that the complaint was barred by Sections 195 (1) (b) and (c) of the Code. Against that order a revision was filed before the Sessions Judge by the complainant and the same has been allowed and it has been held that as the notification under Section 4 of the Act has already been issued, hence the Naib Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to entertain the application for mutation and even if the said mutation application was filed before the Naib Tahsildar, that would not confer jurisdiction upon him and it would be deemed as if the mutation application was filed before a court which has got no authority under law to entertain that application. The court of Naib Tahsildar cannot be said to be a court within the meaning of Section 195 of the Code as it could not entertain the application for mutation. Against this order the present revision has been filed by applicants (i. e. the opposite parties in the complaint ). Learned counsel for the applicant urged that even though the application for mutation was filed at a time, when the village where land in dispute was situate, was under consolidation operation in pursuance of the noti fication under Section 4 of the Act, that could not have been decided in favour of either party in view of Section 5 (2) (b) of the Act, rather it must have been ordered to abate, but for the purposes of Section 195 of the Code the court of Naib Tahsildar must be deemed to be a court and private complaint would be barred by Section 195 (1) (b) of the Code.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the opposite party, on the other hand, urged that the words no court shall take cognizance of any offence specified under Section 195 (1) (b) except on the complaint in writing of that court, obviously means that the court in which document was filed must have jurisdiction to entertain the case of application and must have power to decide it finally on merits. Unless the court has jurisdiction to decide it on merits, it could not be said to be a court and private complaint cannot be barred. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the point for deter mination is as to whether the court of Naib Tahsildar can be said to be a court after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. In fact, even though it can entertain an application for mutation, but it cannot decide it or pass a final order as in view of 5 (2) (b) of the Act, the application would abate. In fact, the word 'court' has not been defined in the Code, rather it has been defined under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act to the effect that the court includes all judges and Magistrates and all persons arbitrators legally authorised to take evidence. But this definition is not exhaustive. Otherwise, also, the word' court' means any person having jurisdiction to entertain a complaint, application or suit etc. and to decide the same. In case the court has no power either to entertain or to pass a final order, it cannot be said that it has got some authority to entertain or to decide or to pass a final order.;