AGARWAL, J. - (1.) THIS application has been filed by the petitioners Manphool son of Manchand and Hajari Ram son of Mansha Ram for sanctioning the prosecution of non-applicant Manphool son of Bhera Ram in respect of an offence under section 193 of the Indian Penal Code. THIS application has been filed in the following circumstances -
(2.) THE applicants as well as non-applicant are residents of chak 9 K. M. in Tehsil Hanumangarh. THE agricultural fields in the aforesaid chak were originally being irrigated from the outlet at stone No. 211/404. By order dated 28-2-81. the Executive Engineer (Divisional Irrigation Officer R. C. P. Circle, C. A. D, Rajasthan Canal Project Hanumangarh Junction (here in after called 'the Executive Engineer) ordered that the outlet be shifted to stone No. 211/405. Against the aforesaid order of the Executive Engineer, the petitioner filed an appeal and the said appeal was allowed by the Superintending Engineer (Superintending Irrigation Officer), R. C. P. Circle, Rajasthan Canal Project, Hanumangarh Junction (hereinafter called the 'superintending Engineer' by the order dated 14-10-81. By the order aforesaid, the Superintending Engineer directed that there should be no change in the outlet. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the Superintending Engineer, the non-petitioner along with Manphool son of Chanduram filed a writ petition (S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1873/81) in this Court. In the said writ petition, the non-petitioner as well as said Manphool son of Chanduram prayed that an appropriate writ, order or direction be issued to quash the order of the Superintending Engineer dated 1410-81. One of the grounds which was urged in the said writ petition to challenge the legality of the order of the Superintending Engineer was that it was passed without impleading them as party and without giving them an opportunity of hearing. THE petitioners were impleaded as respondents Nos. 5 and 4 in the said writ petition. THE writ petition was contested by the petitioners herein as well as by the other respondents to the writ petition, namely, the Superintending Engineer, the Executive Engineer and the State of Rajasthan-respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to the said writ petition. In the reply that was filed on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in the said writ petition, it was asserted that before passing the order dated 14-10-81 by the Superintending Engineer, a general notice had been circulated in the village inviting objections and in the said notice, the date that was fixed was 20-5-81 and that the non-petitioner had put his signatures on the said general notice and that Manphool son of Chanduram had affixed his thumb impression on it and that both of them had also appeared before the Superintending Engineer on 20-5-81. In the said reply, it was further stated that on 20-5 81, the matter was adjourned to 23-6-81 and on that date also, the non-petitioner was present before the Superintending Engineer and thus, the non-petitioner as well as Manphool son of Chanduram were both fully aware of the appeal which had been filed by the petitioners and that the non-petitioner as well as Manphool son of Chanduram had deliberately mentioned wrong facts in the writ petition. This court, by its order dated Sept. 21, 1982, dismissed the said writ petition of the non-petitioner and Manphool son of Chanduram. This Court rejected the contention urged on behalf of the non-petitioner and Manphool son of Chandu-Ram that the order dated October 14, 1981 was passed in disregard of the principles of natural justice and that the non-petitioner and Manphool son of Chanduram were not served with a notice of the appeal that was filed by the petitioners. After the aforesaid decision of this Court, the petitioners have filed this petition. In this petition, it has been stated that in para 8 of the writ petition, it was averred by the non-petitioner and Manphool son of Chanduram that they did not receive any notice of the appeal and the said appeal was decided at their back without giving them an opportunity of hearing and that no notice was received by them regarding the appeal and that in para 9 (ii) also, it has been stated that no notice whatsoever was served on the petitioners in the writ petition (non-petitioner and Manphool son of Chanduram) regarding the appeal and no opportunity of hearing was given to them for the appeal. In the petition it has further been stated that the aforesaid averments contained in the writ petition were verified to be true to his personal knowledge by the non-petitioner in his affidavit which was filed in support of the writ petition. The petitioner submitted that the aforesaid averments contained in para 8 and 9 (ii) of the writ petition were false to the knowledge of the non-petitioner and that the present case falls within the mischief of explanation 2 to section 191, Indian Penal Code, and that the offence under section 193 I. P. C. made out against the non-petitioner. The petitioners have, therefore, prayed that the non-petitioner may be ordered to be prosecuted for an offence under section 193, I. P. C. and necessary sanction may be given in this regard. A notice of this application was issued to the non-petitioner and he was required to show cause as to why sanction for the prosecution of the non-petitioner under section 193 I. P. C. may not be ordered Even though the said notice had been duly served on the non-petitioner on 8. 12. 82, he has got chosen to appear before this Court. I have heard Shri H. N. Calla, learned counsel for the petitioners and have also perused the record. In para 8 of the writ petition that was filed by the non-petitioner and Manphool son of Chanduram in this Court, it was alleged as under,- "that it will be relevant to submit here that the petitioners or the other co-sharers who were interested in this shifting of this out let were not made parties to the appeal. The petitioners were not made parties. They did not receive any notice of this appeal and this has been decided at their back without giving them any opportunity of hearing. No doubt the impugned order speaks that the opposite party was present but this is absolutely incorrect. Never the petitioners were present nor any other interested person were present at the time of hearing of this appeal. No notice was ever received regarding this appeal". Similarly, in ground No. (ii) of para 9 of the writ petition, it has been stated as under,- "that the petitioners were not made party to the appeal by the respondents No. 4 and 5. The respondent No. 2 did not issue any notice to the petitioners and no notice whatsoever was ever served on the petitioners regarding this appeal and also no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners in this appeal. " The non-petitioner had filed an affidavit dated 16. 11. 81 in support of the writ petition. In para 2 of the said affidavit, the non-petitioner had stated that submissions of facts mentioned in para 1 to 10 of the writ petition were true to his personal knowledge. In the reply that was filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 in the writ petition, in reply to the averments contained in para 8, it was stated that the Superintending Engineer, after registering the appeal filed by the petitioners, had issued a general notice in the village inviting objections in that regard and the date that was fixed was 20. 5. 81 and that the said general notice was circulated in the village and that the non-petitioner signed the said notice and Manphool son of Chanduram affixed his thumb impression on it. In support of the aforesaid averment, reliance was placed on the photostat copies of the notice which were annexed as Ex R/l and Ex. R/2 to the said reply. In the said reply, it was further stated that on 20. 5. 81, as many as 9 persons including the non-petitioner and Manphool son of Chanduram attended the office of the Superintending Engineer and in support of the aforesaid statement, photostat copy of the order sheet dated 20-5-81 containing the signatures of petitioner No. 1 and the thumb impression of Manphool son of Chanduram was annexed as Annexure Ex. R/3. In the said reply, it was further stated that the case was adjourned to 23-6-81 and on that day also, the non-petitioner was present and he had signed the order sheet which was apparent from the photostat copy Ex. R. 3. Similarly, reply to sub-para (ii) of para 9 of the writ petition, it was stated in the said reply that even though the non-petitioner and Manphool son of Chanduram were not impleaded as respondents in the appeal before the Superintending Engineer but a general notice was issued in that regard and all the effected share-holders had been duly informed and that the non-petitioner and Manphool son of Chanduram along with seven persons were present before the Superintending Engineer on one or two dates of hearing. From perusal of Ex. R 2 annexed to the aforesaid reply, it appears that it is the photostat copy of the notice that was issued by the Superintending Engineer to all the cultivators of chak No. 9 K. M. on the appeal of the petitioners and by the said notice, objections were invited against the said appeal on 20. 5. 81. On the back of the said notice, there is the signature of Manphool and thumb impression of another Manphool and certain other persons. Ex. R/3 is the copy of the order sheet dated 20. 5. 81 and 23. 6. 81. The order sheet dated 20. 5. 81 records the presence of the non-petitioner and Man-phool son of Chanduram and also bears the signatures of one Manphool and thumb impression of Manphool. Similarly, order sheet dated 23. 6. 81 records the presence of the non-petitioner and bears the signatures of one Manphool. In the writ petition, neither the non-petitioner nor Manphool son of Chanduram did not file any rejoinder to the aforesaid reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 to 3 and the averments contained in the aforesaid reply about the notice being issued to all the villagers including non-petitioner and Manphool son of Chanduram and the documents Ex. R/2 and Ex. R/3 bearing the signatures of the non-petitioner and thumb impressions of Manphool son of Chanduram were not controverted. In the circumstances referred to above, I am prima facie satisfied that after the filing of the appeal by the petitioners before the Superintending Engineer, the Superintending Engineer had issued a general notice on the said appeal inviting objections from all the cultivators of chak No. 9 K. M. inviting objections before 20. 5. 81 and the said notice was also circulated to the non-petitioner and Manphool son of Chanduram and that in response to the said notice, the non-petitioner and Manphool son of Chanduram appeared before the Superintending Engineer on 20. 5. 81 and that the non-petitioner again appeared before the Superintending Engineer on 23. 5. 81. This would show that the averments contained in paras 8 and 9 (ii) of the writ petition that was filed by the non-petitioner and Manphool son of Chanduram that they did not receive any notice of the appeal that was filed by the petitioners before the Superintending Engineer & that the said appeal was decided at their back without giving the opportunity of hearing, are false. Since the non-petitioner has verified the truth of the aforesaid statements contained in paras 8 and 9 (ii) of the writ petition on the basis of his personal knowledge in the affidavit that was filed by him in support of the writ petition. I am prima facie satisfied that the non-petitioner has given false evidence before this Court by swearing in a false affidavit in support of the writ petition and that the non-petitioner has committed an offence punishable under section 193, I. P. C. Since the non-petitioner has tried to mislead this court and tried to obtain a favourable order in his favour by making a false statement in the writ petition and filing a false affidavit in support of the writ petition, I am of the opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an enquiry should be made into the offence punishable under section 193 of the Indian Penal Code which appears to have been committed by the non-petitioner in relation to the proceedings in the writ petition filed by non-petitioner and Manphool son of Chandu Ram in this Court. In my opinion, therefore, this is a fit case in which a complaint should be made against the non-petitioner for his having committed an offence punishable under section 193, I. P. C. under the provisions of section 340, Cr. P. C. In the result, the petition is allowed and it is directed that the Registrar of this Court shall make a complaint in writing in the Court of the Magistrate of First Class, having jurisdiction against non-petitioner Manphool son of Bheraram in respect of the offence punishable under S. 193 I. P. C. which appears to have been committed by the said non-petitioner in relation to the proceedings in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1873 of 1981 in this Court. Since the non-petitioner has failed to appear before this Court, no direction with regard to security for the appearance of the non petitioner before the Court of the Magistrate can be given. It will be for the Magistrate concerned to take appropriate steps to secure the presence of the non-petitioner before him. . ;