K.P.S.SANDHU, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by Shrimati Durga Devi petitioner for quashing the proceedings under Sections 181/207/208/210 and 120 -B of the Indian Penal Code and the summoning order dated 30th November, 1982, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Fazilka.
(2.) THE facts which gave rise to this petition are that a declaratory suit was filed by the petitioner against her brother Shri Chaman Lal alleging that she was full owner of certain khasra numbers of land situated a mauza Ghatiwali Bodia, tehsil Fazilka, Shri Chaman Lal conceded the claim of the petitioner in that suit and the same was decreed in her favour on Ist October, 1977. Respondent No. 1 Jagtar Singh, who has almost nothing to do with the suit property, filed a complaint under Sections 181/207/208/210 and 120 -B of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Fazilka, alleging therein that the petitioner Shrimati Durga Devi and her brother Chaman Lal had secured the decree by stating false facts and putting forth a false claim before the civil Court. The learned Judicial Magistrate, after recording the statement of Jagtar Singh respondent No. 1 and another witness Sham Lal, summoned the petitioner and her brother Chaman Lal under the aforesaid Sections.
(3.) THE main thrust of Mr. G.R. Mijithia, learned counsel for the petitioner, against the impugned order is that the same was without jurisdiction. He has mainly relied upon the provisions of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which reads as under : - "195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offends 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) or 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 163, 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. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Magistrate was not competent to take cognizance of the offences unless a complaint in writing was made by the Court itself which tried the civil suit or some other Court to which that Court is subordinate. In view of the provisions of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the contention of the learned counsel must prevail. Consequently I quash the complaint and the order of the learned Magistrate by which he has summoned the petitioner and her brother Chaman Lal. ;