SHAMSHUL HAQUE Vs. ABDUL MABOOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) B. L. Yadav, J. This revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Crimi nal Procedure, 1973, (for short the Code), is directed against the order dated 22-2-85 passed by the Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Basti, allowing the revision and setting aside the order dated 1-6-84 passed by the Munsif Magistrate, Basti, in a case under Sections 467/468/419/420/120-B of the I. P. C.

(2.) A complaint, against Shamshul Haque and others the present applicants, was filed disclosing offence under Sections 467/468/419/420/120-B of the I. P. C. It was alleged that a document was filed in the Court of Naib-Tehsildar, Dumaria-ganj. The offence under the aforesaid Sections was committed by the applicants by the time the document remained in the court of Naib Tahsildar. But when the document was filed in the court of Naib Tahsildar, the village, where the plots in dispute were situate, has come under consolidation operations and a notification under Section 4 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1954, (for short the Act), was already issued- An application on behalf of the applicants was filed that as the complaint was filed before the court of Naib-Tahsildar and the offence was committed during the continuance of those proceedings, hence the complainant has got no authority under law to file the complaint against the applicants and the complaint was by Sections 195 (1) (b) and (c) of the Code.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the opposite party, on the other hand, urged that the words no court shall take cognizance of any offence specified under Section 195 (1) (b) except on the complaint in writing of that court, obviously means that the court in which document was filed must have jurisdiction to entertain the case of application and must have power to decide it finally on merits. Unless the court has jurisdiction to decide it on merits, it could not be said to be a court and private complaint cannot be barred.