K.N. Phaneendra, J.

1. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash the entire proceedings in C.C. No. 311/2014 pending before the Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate at Yadgiri.

2. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned Addl. SPP for the respondent.

3. The brief factual matrix emanate from the records are that -

"A person by name Noor Mohammad (petitioner herein) filed the First Information Report making allegations against the accused by name Nabisab for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 324and 504 of IPC. When the police after due investigation, submitted charge sheet and a case in C.C. No. 240/2013 was registered. When the matter was taken up for evidence, the petitioner examined himself as P.W. 1. P.W. 1 has reiterated his case in examination-in-chief specifically making allegations that the accused, on that particular day abused him in filthy language and also assaulted him with a club on his back, on the knee and left leg and caused bleeding injuries, after wrongfully trespassing his land. He also got marked MO.1-Stick and also Ex. P1-the original FIR filed. He supported the case in his examination in chief but during the course of cross-examination by the defense counsel, he totally taken a ‘IJ' turn and stated that there was absolutely no quarrel between himself and the accused and the accused did not assault him or abuse him, and no eyewitnesses were present at that time, though he has specifically stated in examination-in-chief that the eye-witnesses have rescued him from the clutches of the accused. The other eye-witnesses turned totally hostile to the prosecution and ultimately the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yadagiri, acquitted the accused. But at the same time the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has observed that there is inconsistency in the evidence of P.W. 1, as he has taken two versions in examination-in-chief and in cross-examination. Therefore, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate thought that, it requires an action against him for the offence under Section 193 of IPC. Accordingly, while acquitting the accused, in the same order he has directed the office to register a separate case against the petitioner. Against that order the present petition is preferred.

4. Of course, I do not find any illegality committed by the learned Magistrate so far as the substance of the allegations made against the petitioner is concerned, because, it is found from the examination-in-chief and the cross-examination of P.W. 1 that he has given two inconsistent versions. But the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate unmindful of the procedure to be followed, committed serious incurable irregularity in initiating a proceeding for the offence under Section 193 of IPC without following the procedure contemplated therein and wrongly directed the office to post the case against him. It is also seen from the records that, on the basis of the above said order, a case was registered in C.C. No. 311/2014 and cognizance was taken by the same Chief Judicial Magistrate and he ordered to issue process against the accused. This act of the Chief Judicial Magistrate clearly indicates that the order of taking cognizance against the petitioner is violative of principles of natural justice. It is a well known recognized criminal or civil jurisprudence that a man cannot be a Judge of his own cause that means to say when the Magistrate himself lodges a complaint about the complicity of the petitioner under Section 193 of IPC, he becomes the witness to the said incident, because according to him the said inconsistent evidence was given before him during the course of the case in C.C. No. 240/2013, therefore, he himself cannot try the said case.

5. Secondly, the illegality and irregularity committed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is that, he never looked into the provision of Sections 340 and 195 of Cr.P.C. The judicial Courts strictly should act according to th