H.R.PANWAR,J. - (1.) BY the instant criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has challenged the order dt.20.02.2004 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) on a complaint filed against the petitioner by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Sri Ganganagar under Section 193 IPC. Aggrieved by the order impugned as also the filing of the complaint against the petitioner, the petitioner has filed the instant Cr. Misc. Petition.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Carefully gone through the complaint as also the order impugned taking cognizance. Facts giving rise to the instant cr. misc. petition are that the petitioner lodged a first information report Ex.P/7 to the SHO, Police Station, Sadar, Sri Ganganagar on 15.11.2001 alleging therein that in a factory, fire was put to D.G. Set Room for which according to him Mahadev Bahadur, who was working in the factory of Jaidev Jindal is responsible. After usual investigation, the police did not file the challan against Mahadev Bahadur, however, the challan has been filed against other persons namely Ved Prakash, Sudhir Kumar, Mahendra Pratap and Jaidev for the offences under Sections 120-B and 436 IPC. The matter was committed to the Court of Sessions as the offence under Section 436 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. The same was transferred to the Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Sri Ganganagar for trial. The petitioner was one of the prosecution witnesses. He denied the statement marked 'A' to ' B' having been made in Ex.P/7, which relates to the allegation against Mahadev Bahadur that he was not accused in the case as the police did not file the challan against him.
(3.) BY judgment and order dt. 15.11.2003 in Sessions Case No. 39/2003, learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Sri Ganganagar acquitted all the four accused persons of the charges. However, directed to initiate the proceedings under Section 193 IPC against the present petitioner for making a false statement i.e. perjury and filed the complaint. On that complaint, the trial court took the cognizance and issued the process. Hence, this petition.;