R DAYANANDA NAIDU Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A complaint has been filed under Sections 467 and 471 IPC against the 2nd respondent herein before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madanapalle. The de facto complainant is one of the dependants in a Civil suit O.S.No. 51/83 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Madanapalle. That suit based on a promissory note was filed by the 2nd respondent against the petitioner and others. When the suit was posted for the evidence of the defendants, the plaintiff (2nd Respondent) withdraw the suit and the suit was dismissed by the learned District Munsif as not passed. The de facto complainant filed the complaint under Sections 467 and 471 IPC alleging that the 2nd respondent has forged the promissory note which was a discharged one and thus committed on offence. The said complaint was taken on file as CC.No. 186/89. Pending the said CC, the 2nd respondent filed an application Crl.M.P. No. 2829/89 stating that the said offences could not have been taken cognizance of by the learned Magistrate excepton a complaintin writing, that the complaint has not been lodged by the Principal District Munsif, Madanapalle and that the complainant has not obtained any permission from the Court for launching the prosecution.

(2.) The de facto complainant took the plea in the counter to the said petition that the offence under Section 467 IPC is outside the scope of Section 195 Cr.P.C. and it is independent of any proceedings and as such no permission is required to prosecute a person for a charge under Section467 IPC and there was no needatall to file a complaint by the court. Further, he has not given any consent for the withdrawal of the suit

(3.) After the suit was dismissed, the de facto complainant approached the Civil Court with a request to grant the records and the Court also endorsed on the same under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.