MANU/UP/0165/1965
Equivalent/Neutral Citation: AIR1965All597, (1965) 35 AWR 2, 1965C riLJ705
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Criminal Revn. No. 1744 of 1963
Decided On: 26.11.1964
Gir Raj Vs. Sulla and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
H.C.P. Tripathi, J.
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: J.N. Agarwal and Makundlal Agarwal, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: R.K. Shukla, Addl. Govt. Adv.
Case Note:
Criminal - prosecution on the basis of private complaint - Section 195 of
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 - statement of the applicant before Court
under the purview of Sections 193 and 195 of Indian Penal code, 1860 - it
also discloses the offence under Section 500 of Indian Penal code, 1860 -
held, prosecution under Section 500 on the basis of private complaint not
barred just because statement discloses offence under Sections 193 and 195.
ORDER
H.C.P. Tripathi, J.
1. This application in revision arises in the following circumstances :
2. Sessions trial No. 85 of 1961 was held in the Court of the Temporary Sessions Judge
of Mathura in which the opposite party Sulla was one of the accused under the various
sections of the Indian Penal Code. The trial related to the alleged kidnapping of the
applicant Gir Raj from his Nohra in village Bathain. In this case Git Raj was examined as
a witness and he made certain statements which are the subject matter of a complaint
against him filed by the opposite party under Section 500, I. P. C. The Sessions Trial
ended in the acquittal of the opposite party.
3. In the proceedings started on the complaint of the opposite party, an application was
made before the Magistrate for quashing the proceedings on the ground that the trial
was barred by Section 195, Criminal P. C. and by the proviso to Section 132 of the
Indian Evidence Act. The learned Magistrate, however, rejected that application and on
revision the learned Temporary Sessions Judge of Mathura has concurred with him. The
applicant has, therefore, now come up in revision to this Court against the aforesaid
order of the Magistrate.
4 . Learned counsel for the applicant has raised two points in support of this revision.
He has argued that as the impugned statement was made by the applicant before a
Court of law, the only offence which can be charged against him on its basis, if at all,
was covered by Section 193 or 195 of the Indian Penal Code, cognizance of which was
barred under & 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the basis of a private
02-06-2024 (Page 1 of 2) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Delhi
complaint. The second point raised by the learned counsel is that the applicant was
protected under the proviso to Section 132 of the Evidence Act for having made that
statement in Court. I do not find, however, any substance in these arguments.
5. In the case of Basir-ul-Haq v. State of West Bengal MANU/SC/0028/1953 it was held
that as regards the charge under Section 500, Penal Code, it seems fairly clear both on
principle and authority that where the allegations made in a false report disclosed two
distinct offences, one against the public servant and the other against a private
individual, that other is not debarred by the provisions of Section 195 from seeking
redress for the offence committed against him."
6. This principle of law applies with full force in the present case. Even if the statement
made by the applicant before the Court of the Sessions Judge comes tinder the purview
of Section 193 or 195, I. P. C. but if it also discloses an offence under Section 500, 36.
P. C., there is no legal bar for the aggrieved person to seek his remedy in a Court of law
against the applicant.
7. As regards the second point raised by the learned counsel, the question is concluded
by the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Chotkan v. State, reported in
MANU/UP/0177/1960 : 1960 All L J 638 : AIR 1960 All 606.
8 . Without going therefore, into the merits of the allegations in the complaint, I find
that there is no illegality in its entertainment by the learned Magistrate.
9. This revision has no force and it is dismissed.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
02-06-2024 (Page 2 of 2) www.manupatra.com National Law University, Delhi
