IIIA SREERAMA MURTHY Vs. SANIVARAPU SATYANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner assails the order passed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadepalligudam in S.R.No. 2420 of 1998, dated 1-12-1998. He filed a written complaint alleging that A1 and A2 having pleaded in the written statement that the suit promissory note is a rank forgery and they never executed the same, at a later stage admitted the execution and therefore they made deliberate false statement which was false to the knowledge and belief and liable for punishment under Sections 193 and 199 of Indian Penal Code. The offence under Sections 191 and 192 are punishable under Section 193 of Indian Penal Code. In respect of an offence under Section 193 or 199 as the case may be the bar engrafted under Section 195, Cr. P.C. is attracted. The Court is prevented from taking cognizance of the offence except on a written complaint made by the Court before which the offence is alleged to have been committed.

(2.) Here is a case, the complaint is sought to be filed by the complainant who filed a suit on the foot of the promissory note alleging false evidence and false statement punishable under Sections 193 and 199, IPC as afore discussed. The offence alleged in the complaint cannot be taken cognizance of by the Court on the complaint filed by the plaintiff who filed the suit. Although this aspect has not been addressed by the Court below on different consideration, the complaint has been dismissed under Section 203, Cr. P.C. There is a mandatory bar under Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code and that bar particularly is for the Court. Therefore, the complaint cannot be taken on file.

(3.) In the result, the revision fails and the Revision is dismissed.Petition dismissed.