The need for consistency in the application of legal provisions and the requirement to follow the appropriate procedure as contemplated under Sec. 195(1)(b)(i) of IPC and to decide whether to proceed under Sec. 344 of Cr.P.C. or under Sec. 193 of IPC.

JUDGMENT :

Rajendra Badamikar, J.

1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. for setting aside the order dtd. 18/4/2015 passed in C.C.No. 2621/2015, arising out of Crime No. 50/2013, which is pending on the file of I Additional JMFC, Kalaburagi.

2. The facts leading to this case are that the petitioner was a complainant in Crime No. 50/2013 against four accused persons registered for the offences punishable under Ss. 341, 323, 324, 504, 506 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC')- The investigating officer has subsequently submitted the charge sheet and case was registered in C.C.No. 3199/2013 against the accused therein. The matter went for trial and after appreciating the evidence on record, the learned Magistrate by order dtd. 18/4/2015 acquitted accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Ss. 341, 323, 324, 504, 506 read with Sec. 34 of IPC and set them at liberty. However, he has passed further order that in view of the observations made in paragraph Nos.29 to 31 against PW.1/complainant/present petitioner, he shall be tried summarily for giving false evidence before the Court and in his further order, the learned Magistrate has directed to register a case in Register No. 111 against the complainant/present petitioner for the offence punishable under Sec. 193 of IPC and ordered to place the judgment copy and copy of the depositions of the complainant with a direction to issue show cause notice to him. The order regarding issuing show cause notice to the petitioner came to be challenged in this petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Magistrate ought to have lodged a complaint, which is mandatory under Sec. 195(l)(b)(i) of Cr.P.C. when he has making a complaint for the offence punishable under Sec. 193 of IPC, but, that was not done in the present case. He further argued that the learned Magistrate has also not proceeded summarily and his directions are inconsistent in operative portion of the judgment. Hence, he has sought for setting aside the said order.

4. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner herein has given a false evidence and the trial Court has observed the same in paragraph Nos.29 to 31 in its judgment and that is the base for issuing show cause notice to him and hence, it is contended that no illegality is there and sought for dismissal of the petition.

5. The complainant has lodged a complaint against the accused persons therein in the original case C.C.No. 3199/2013 by setting the law in motion. However, when the trial has been commenced, the complainant has given go bye to the allegations made in the complaint and denied the entire case of the prosecution by turning hostile. The learned Magistrate has observed that the complainant/petitioner herein went on changing his stances as per his whims and fancies and he has given false evidence and hence, directed him to prosecute. The said observation cannot be said to be illegal considering the facts placed on record.

6. The offence punishable under Sec. 193 of IPC is pertaining to intentionally giving false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding and it is punishable with imprisonment, which may extend up to seven years and with fine. Hence, it is evident that a person to be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sec. 193 of IPC and such case to be tried as a warrant trial.

7. Sec. 195(l)(b)(i) of Cr.P.C. deals with the prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence. The said sec. stipulates that any offence under the provisions of Ss. 193 to 196 of IPC if committed, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, no Court shall take cognizance except on the complaint in writing of that Court or by such officer of the Court as that Court may authorise in writing in this behalf. Admittedly, the offence under