B.N. Katju, J. - (1.) THIS is an application under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure praying that the proceedings against the applicants in Criminal Case No. 134 of 1978 pending in the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate, Agra be quashed.
(2.) IT is alleged in the application that opposite party No. 2 filed a complaint against the applicants in the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate, Agra under Sections 195/465/468/471/109, IPC which was dismissed on 28 -2 -1973 on the ground that it was not maintainable in view of Section 195(1)(b) Cr. P.C. Opposite party No. 2 thereafter filed a second complaint in the Court of the Special Judicial Magistrate, Agra, under Sections 109/467/468/471 I.P.C. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 18 -3 -1978 summoned the applicant under Sections 465/468/471 read with Section 34 IPC. An application was filed by the applicants in the Court of the learned Magistrate praying that this complaint be also dismissed as it was not maintainable in view of Section 195(1)(b) Cr. P.C. which was rejected by the learned Magistrate by his order dated 9 -6 -1978. The dismissal of a complaint on the ground that it is barred by Section 195(1)(b) Code of Criminal Procedure does not, in my opinion, bar the filing of a fresh complaint on the same set of facts under Section 300 Code of Criminal Procedure as it is mentioned in the explanation to Sub -section (6) of Section 300 Code of Criminal Procedure that the dismissal of a complaint is not an acquittal for the purposes of that section.
(3.) THE main question that, however, requires determination is whether the second complaint filed by opposite -party No. 2 against the applicants is barred by Section 195(1)(b) Cr. P.C. It is stated in this complaint that opposite party No. 2 moved an application before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer (Tehsildar) for the allotment of the godown owned by applicants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 situated in Fatehabad town in his favour. Applicant No. 1 filed an objection that the said godown was not vacant as it was in the tenancy of applicant No. 4. Rent receipts issued by applicant No. 1 in favour of applicant No. 4 were filed before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer (Tehsildar) and the applicants were also examined as witnesses and the godown was thereafter allotted by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer (Tahsildar) in favour of opposite party No. 2. The appeal filed by applicant No. 4 against the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer (Tehsildar) is pending before the District and Sessions Judge, Agra. It was also alleged in the complaint that the rent receipts filed by the applicants before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer (Tahsildar) were forged. Section 195(1) Cr. P.C. runs as follows: 195(1) No court shall take cognizance - (a)(i) of any offence punishable under Sections 172 - 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code 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, namely, Sections 193 - 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 - 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 486, 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.;