S.S.DEWAN, J. - (1.) WITH the aid of this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Harnam Singh petitioner implores this Court to quash the order of the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana to file a complaint under Sections 466 and 471, Indian Penal Code, against him.
(2.) IT appears that in the year 1975, Mukhtiar Singh, Mohinder Singh and Malkiat Singh challenged the decree dated August 31, 1974, obtained by Harnam Singh petitioner from the Court of Shri Gopi Chand, Sub-Judge, Ist Class, Ludhiana, on the ground of fraud. This suit was contested by the petitioner and others which was dismissed on October 28, 1978. Aggrieved by this order, the plaintiffs filed an appeal in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, which was allowed vide order dated August 18, 1980 and the judgment dated October 28, 1978, was set aside. Mukhtiar Singh and others then filed an application under Section 340 read with Section 195, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short the Code), in the Court of Additional District Judge, Ludhiana praying that a complaint be filed against Harnam Singh preparing false documents and using the same as genuine during the trial of the civil suit in the Court of Shri Gopi Chand, Sub-Judge, Ludhiana. The learned Additional District Judge thought that he had the power under Section 340 of the Code to file a complaint and acted accordingly. The principle point that arises for consideration is whether the Additional District Judge's Court was a Court which could exercise jurisdiction under Section 340(2). The matter is not now res integra. In Kuldip Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 1956 SCR 125, the Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court had made the following observations :- "The question as to which Court is competent to make a complaint under Section 476-A read with Section 195(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure where none was made by the Court in which the offence was committed or its successor Court, will depend on the nature of the proceeding in which the offence was committed, whether civil criminal or revenue, and on the hierarchy of superior Courts to which an appeal from such proceedings will ordinarily lie as contemplated by Section 195(3) of the Code, apart from such exceptions as may be made in respect of any particular matters by any special notification or laws. Where, however, appeals ordinarily lie to different course, the one of the lowest grade will be the Court competent to make the complaint. xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx Under the Punjab Court Act of 1918 and the hierarchy of civil Courts established thereby, appeals from the Courts of the various subordinate Judges who constitute distinct Courts do not ordinarily lie to the Senior Subordinate Judge but to the District Judge and the Court of the Additional Judge, is not a Court of co-ordinate jurisdiction with that of the District Judge is not a Court of co-ordinate jurisdiction with that of the District Judge. The Act neither mentions nor recognises an Additional District Judge as a Court of that hierarchy. Consequently, in a case where offences under Sections 193 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code were alleged to have been committed in a civil proceeding in the Court of a Subordinate Judge of the first class exercising jurisdiction under the Punjab Courts Act of 1918, and neither he nor his successor made a complaint or rejected the application for the making of it, the Senior Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter and made the complaint either as a Court of appeal under Section 476-B or of its own authority under Section 476-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Additional Judge, by wrongly describing himself as an Additional District Judge, could not assume a jurisdiction which he did not possess under those sections." Keeping in view the aforesaid observation of the Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court, an Additional District Judge is not the Court to whom appeals from the orders of the Subordinate Judge ordinarily lie. Consequently, that Court is not one of the Appellate Tribunals contemplated by Section 195(4) of the Code and its proviso. But appeals do ordinarily lie either to the District Judge or the High Court and as a District Court is lower of these two Tribunals that must be regarded as the Appellate Court for the purpose of Section 195(4) of the Code. The Code of the Additional District Judge has no jurisdiction to entertain this matter either as a Court of appeal or by its own authority under Section 195(4). I, therefore, order that the complaint be withdrawn. Order accordingly.;