Cognizance of certain offences under the Indian Penal Code can only be taken on a complaint in writing by the public servant concerned or by the Court or officer authorized by the Court, as per the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code.

JUDGMENT :

KISHORE C. SANT, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties.

2. The petitioner is the original complainant who had filed a complaint in the Court of learned J.M.F.C. Rahuri. The petition is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar dated 02.05.2022 in Criminal Revision No. 61/2021. The learned Sessions Judge by way of impugned judgment and order quashed and set aside order passed by the learned J.M.F.C. issuing process.

3. The petitioner – complainant had filed a complaint bearing Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 399/2018 against the respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 340, 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “Cr.P.C.”) and Sections 191, 193, 196, 199, 200, 181, 182 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “I.P.C.”). In short it is the complaint of the petitioner that respondent No. 1 – his wife had lodged the proceeding under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (for short “Domestic Violence Act”) bearing Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 242/2013. The learned J.M.F.C. by judgment and order dated 07.10.2015 was pleased to allow the said application directing the present petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 4,000/- (Rs. Four Thousand only) per month to respondent No. 1 and Rs. 500/- (Rs. Five Hundred only) per month to daughter towards maintenance. The petitioner and his parents were directed to pay an amount of Rs. 15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen Thousand only) towards compensation and Rs. 3,000/- (Rs. Three Thousand only) towards cost of the proceedings. The complainant later on came to know that in the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act the respondent No. 1 had made a false statement that she is jobless and does not have any income source. Other factual incorrect statement is made that she belongs to Hindu religion when in fact, before the marriage she had converted to Christianity. It is further submitted that, by furnishing false information she has misled the Court in the judicial proceedings. The learned J.M.F.C. on recording the evidence was pleased to pass an order of issuance of process against the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 181, 182, 191 r/w Section 193 of the I.P.C. by order dated 24.03.2021.

4. The order of issuance of process came to be challenged by the respondents in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar by way of Criminal Revision No. 61/2021. The petitioner appeared in the revision. The matter was heard. The learned Sessions Judge allowed the revision petition and quashed the order of issuance of process passed by the learned J.M.F.C. The learned Sessions Judge mainly considered that, no Court can take cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 181 and 182 of the I.P.C. in view of Section 195 (1) of the Cr.P.C. except on the complaint in writing by the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom such public servant is administratively subordinate. As regards the offence punishable under Section 193 of the I.P.C. complaint can be lodged only in writing of that Court or the officer authorized by such Court in writing in this behalf, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate. Thus, the learned Sessions Judge considering legal position quashed and set aside the order. The learned Sessions Judge considered the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of (i) Pritish vs. State of Maharashtra in Appeal (Crl.) No. 1188/2001 (ii) Iabal Singh Marwah and Another vs. Meenakshi Marwah and Another, (2005) 4 SCC 370 and (iii) Perumal vs. Janaki, (2014) 5 SCC 377. The learned Sessions Court thus allowed the revision.

5. The petitioner is challenging the order mainly on the ground that the learned Sessions Judge has not considered that, prima facie, offence was made out in the complaint. Though the respondent No. 1 was in service, she has falsely stated before the Court in the proceedings that she is jobl