JUDGMENT

1. Leave granted. Challenging the correctness of the judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 336-SBA of 2008 dated 14.10.2010, in and by which, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, convicted the Appellant Under Sections 193 and 419 of the Indian Penal Code, the Appellant has preferred this appeal.

2. Brief facts in nutshell are that the Appellant and the Respondent are real brothers. One Surinder Kumar, who is the maternal uncle of the Appellant, has filed Civil Suit No. 181 of 1987 against his sister Smt. Champa Devi and others on 01.10.1987, inter alia praying for a declaration that he is the owner of a shop being No. 108, Ward 1, Old Mandi, Tohana, to the exclusion of his sister. During the pendency of the suit, Champa Devi, the mother of the Appellant and the Respondent passed away on 14.07.1990. Upon her demise, the Appellant, who is the elder son of Champa Devi, filed an application in the civil court for bringing on record himself and the Respondent along with four sisters as the legal heirs of deceased Champa Devi. While moving the application, instead of naming himself and his younger brother Ramesh Chand, it appears that the Appellant has stated his name as Ramesh Chand alias Kailash Mangal i.e. showing them as one person instead of two persons. It is stated that after some time, the Respondent moved an application for correcting the said mistake and the same was ordered. The suit filed by Surinder Kumar was decreed in his favour.

3. When the matter stood thus, nearly after four years of the aforesaid decree, on 15.1.1994, the Respondent filed a private complaint against the Appellant Under Section340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure alleging that by filing a false affidavit before the civil court, the Appellant has committed offences punishable Under Sections 416, 419, 191, 192and 193 of the Indian Penal Code and also for initiation criminal proceedings against the Appellant. The said private complaint was taken on file and the trial proceeded. After consideration of the evidence on record, the trial court convicted the Appellant Under Sections 193 and 419 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/-. Against this order, the Appellant has filed appeal before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, which set aside the conviction of the Appellant on the ground that the private complaint is not maintainable. Aggrieved by the acquittal of the Appellant, the Respondent has filed an appeal before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, which vide impugned judgment, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of acquittal passed by the first appellate court and restored the judgment of conviction of the Appellant Under Sections193 and 419 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court directed that the Appellant be released on probation on furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court, subject to certain terms and conditions.

4. We have heard learned Counsel for the Appellant and the learned Counsel for the Respondent.

5. The Main contention urged by the learned Counsel for the Appellant is that so far as the offences committed in relation to the proceedings before the civil court, in terms of Section195(1)(b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, (for short 'Code of Criminal Procedure') for the offences punishable Under Sections 193 to 196, 199, 200 to 211 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code, is concerned the court shall take cognizance only on the complaint filed in writing of that court or such officer of the court, who has been duly authorised in writing in this behalf. The learned Counsel further submitted that the private complaint filed by the Respondent is not maintainable and this aspect of the matter was not properly appreciated by the High Court. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel