Shivani Verma @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors

Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to assail the order dated 18.5.2017 passed by the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Jaipur Metropolitan in Criminal Case No.1438/2017, whereby cognizance for offences under Sections 193, 195, 196, 384, 388, 389, 420, 465, 467, 468,

471, 120B and 34 IPC was taken against the accused-petitioner.

Briefly stated, the petitioner herein Shivani Verma allegedly impersonating as Radha Sharma, had filed a complaint for offence under Section 376 IPC

against one Navratan Singh Rathore, respondent No.2. It is stated that petitioner, after affecting compromise, withdrew criminal complaint filed by her

from the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate No.8, Jaipur Metropolitan.

Admittedly, no statement of the petitioner was recorded in the complaint fled by her purportedly as Radha Sharma.

Section 193 IPC specifically prescribe punishment for giving false evidence. Admittedly, petitioner has not deposed in any criminal court of law.

Section 196 IPC prescribe punishment for giving evidence which is believed to be false. Admittedly, petitioner had not given any evidence in any

criminal proceedings.

After perusal of prosecution case, offence, if any, against the petitioner will fall under Section 211 IPC which specifically state that whoever with

intent to cause injury to any person, institutes or causes to be instituted any criminal proceeding against that person or falsely charges any person,

commits offence under Section 211 IPC.

Chapter-XI of Indian Penal Code deal with offences of giving false evidence and offences against public justice.

Section 195 Cr.P.C. reads as under:-

“195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents

given in evidence.â€"(1) No Court shall take cognizanceâ€

(a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860), or (ii) of 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)Â of any offence described in section 463, or punishableunder 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)Â of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt tocommit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in subclause (i) or sub-clause (ii),

except on the complaint in writing of that Court or by such officer of the Court as that Court may authorise in writing in this behalf, or of some other

Court to which that Court is subordinate.

(2)Â Where a complaint has been made by a public servantunder clause (a) of sub-section (1) any authority to which he is administratively

subordinate may order the withdrawal of the complaint and send a copy of such order to the Court; and upon its receipt by the Court, no further

proceedings shall be taken on the complaint:

Provided that no such withdrawal shall be ordered if the trial in the Court of first instance has been concluded.

(3)Â In clause (b) of sub-section (1), the term ""Court""means a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court, and includes a tribunal constituted by or under a

Central, Provincial or State Act if declared by that Act to be a Court for the purposes of this section.

(4)Â For the purposes of clause (b) of sub-section (1), aCourt shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the

appealable decrees or sentences of such former Court, or in the case of a Civil Court from whose decrees no appeal ordinarily lies, to the principal

Court having ordinary original civil jurisdiction within whose local jurisdiction such Civil Court is situate:

Provided thatâ€

(a)Â where appeals lie to more than one Court, the AppellateCourt of inferior jurisdiction shall be the Court to which such Court shall be deemed to

be subordinate;

(b)Â where appeals lie to a Civil and also to a Revenue Court,such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Civil or Revenue Court according

to the nature of the case or proceeding in connection with which the offence is alleged to have been committed.â€​

As per Section 195 Cr.P.C., for prosecution of any accused for offences under Sections 193 to 196, 199, 200, 205 to 211 IPC, complaint is to be filed

only by the concerned court in which either false evidence is given or before whom any complaint was filed.

In the present case, no complaint has been filed by the concerned court before whom the petitioner had filed complaint. Thus, the complaint for

offences under Sections 193, 195, 196, 211 IPC could only be filed by the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate No.8, Jaipur Metropolitan. Before filing

complaint, the said court is bound to hold an inquiry under Section 340 Cr.P.C. No such procedure has been followed.

Consequently, after hearing learned counsel for the parties the impugned order of cognizance (Annx.3) dated 18.5.2017 passed by the Court of Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Jaipur Metropolitan qua offences under Sections 193, 195 and 196 IPC is set aside qua the present petitioner and the matter

is remitted back to the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Jaipur Metropolitan to pass a fresh order of cognizance taking into consideration bar

under Section 195 Cr.P.C. and provisions of Section 340 Cr.P.C. The complainant shall be at liberty to file an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C.

before the court from which allegedly complaint filed by the petitioner as Radha Sharma was withdrawn.

In view of above, the present petition stands disposed of.