B.N.KATJU,J - (1.) THIS is an appli­cation under Section 482, Cr.P.C. praying that the proceedings against the applicants in Criminal Case No. 134 of 1979 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 193/465/468/471/199, I. P. C. which was dismissed on August 28, 1978 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 193/467/468/471, I.P.C. The learned Magistrate by his order dated March 18, 1978 summoned the applicants under Sections 465l468|471 read with Section 34, I.P.C. 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 125(1) (b), Cr.P.C. which was re­jected by the learned Magistrate by his order dated June 9, 1978. The dismissal of a complaint on the ground that it is barred by Section 195 (1) (b), Cr.P.C. does not, in my opi­nion, bar the filing of a fresh complaint on the same set of facts under Section 300, Cr.P.C. as it is mentioned in the application to sub-section (6) of Section 300, Cr.P.C. 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. 1. Rent receipt 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 wax thereafter allotted by the Rent Centre and Eviction Officer (Tehsildar) 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 District and Sessions Judge, Agra. It was also alleged in the complaint that the rent receipts filed by the applicant: before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer (Tehsildar) 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 to 185 (both inclu­sive) of the Indian Penal Code or, (ii) of any abatement or, or at­tempt to commit such offence, or (iii) of any original 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 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 453, 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 original conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abatement, 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." ;