M.T. Joshi, J.

1. Heard both sides. Both the present writ petitions between the same parties have arisen out of the same question of law and therefore, those are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Whether the complaint, on the allegations that the affidavits sworn before the Superintendent of Court and filed thereafter in the court proceedings, can be the subject matter of a complaint directly by the aggrieved person or by the concerned Court on the allegations that the contents of the said affidavit are false, is the issue before this Court.

3. Both the parties i.e. the petitioner as well as respondent No. 2 are agitating certain civil claim in different civil proceedings.

4. Criminal writ petition No. 690/2009 involves an issue as to whether the affidavit filed in the appeal claiming that the petitioner had no knowledge of certain facts. This, according to the respondent No. 2, was false to the record and therefore, he filed a complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for the offences punishable under section 177, 181, 191, 193 and 209 of the I.P. Code.

The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate held that in view of the bar of the provisions of section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the complaint would not be maintainable. In the Revision, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, held that the complaint would be maintainable. Therefore, the present writ petition by the original accused.

5. In Criminal Writ Petition No. 808/2009, an affidavit before the trial court allegedly suppressing certain facts of executing the sale-deed is the cause for filing similar complaint. In that case, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class held that the complaint would not be maintainable. Therefore, the accused i.e. the present petitioner was discharged. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, in the Revision, however, held that the complaint was maintainable and therefore, the order was set aside. Hence, the present writ petition.

6. At this stage, it is not required to go to the facts of the case as the learned Sessions Judge has also avoided from doing the same as only maintainability of the complaint was in issue.

7. It is an admitted fact that the respective affidavits were sworn before the Superintendent of the Civil Court and thereafter, those were filed in the respective civil proceedings by the present writ petitioner.

8. Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure runs as under:-

"195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence.-

(1) No Court shall take cognizance -

(a)(i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code, or

(ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence, or

(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence.

Except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate;

(b)(i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, namely, sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or

(ii) of any offence described in section 463, or punishable under section 471, section 475 or section 476, of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, or

(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (ii),

[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, or of some other Court tow which that Court is subordinate.]

(2) Where a complaint has been made by a public servant under clause (a) of su