IMPORTANT POINT
In order to take cognizance the Magistrate has to apply his mind, to come to definite conclusion as to whether a prima facie case is made out and therefore issue summons.

JUDGMENT

Usha Mehra, J. - This revision petition has been filed by one Shri Daulat Ram, assailing the order passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge dated 18th February, 1991 thereby discharging the accused Rajinder Motwani and dismissing the complaint of the petitioner under section 211/500 I.P.C.

2. In brief, the facts of this case are that the petitioner is a landlord/owner of property bearing No. 3493, Gali Lallu Nissar, Qutub Road, Sadar Bazar, Delhi and one Shri Sajjan Dass of Narain Market, was a tenant under him in respect of one room used as a godown on a monthly rent of Rs. 25/-. The said Sajjan Dass vacated the said godown in the first week of April, 1986. The respondent and his father in order to blackmail the petitioners, started claiming the tenancy in the name of their firm M/s. Popular Stores. This they claimed because once upon a time Sajjan Dass was a partner in the said concern. Since the petitioner refused to recognise them as a tenant, the respondent and his father filed a civil suit on which a local commissioner was appointed to ascertain the possession of the party in the suit premises. The local commissioner found that the respondent was not in possession of the alleged godown. Having failed in their object, the respondent tried to dispossess the petitioner through illegal help and backing of the police and also tried to implicate falsely the petitioner in criminal cases.

3. The police officials visited the petitioner on 25/26th October, 1986 and informed him that there is a police report lodged against him for dispossessing the respondent and theft of articles and that he should report to the police station. The petitioner apprehending the arrest filed a complaint under section 211/500-I.P.C. on 28th October, 1986. The bail was granted on 4th November, 1986. The police official while contesting the bail application brought on record the report filed by the respondent dated 23rd October, 1986. After having come to know of the false complaint of the respondent dated 23rd October, 1986, the petitioner perused his complaint dated 28th October, 1986. He got himself examined besides the police official. The police official appearing as P.W.2 suppressed the report dated 23rd October, 1986 on the basis of which the F.I.R. was lodged. After hearing the parties and going through the record, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate issued summons to the respondent but rejected the complaint against respondent's father.

4. The respondent appeared in response to the summons and took up the preliminary objection that the complaint is not maintainable. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate rejected the objection. However, on revision being filed by the respondent, the Addl. Sessions Judge allowed the revision and dismissed the complaint by the impugned order holding that the complaint was premature and also dismissed the application of the petitioner asking for additional evidence. It is against this order that the present revision has been filed.

5. The respondent raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of this revision petition, inter-alia on the grounds, that the complaint of the petitioner was barred under section 195(l)(b) Cr.P.C., which provides that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under sections 193-196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228 when such an offence is committed in or in relation to, any proceedings in any Court.

6. Mr. Shiv Dayal, appearing for the respondent contended that in this case, the proceedings were pending in the Court with regard to the offence alleged to have been committed and in relation thereto when the Magistrate took the cognizance. This cognizance the Metropolitan Magistrate could not have taken on a private complaint of the petitioner because of the proceedings having already been initiated before the Court. In such an eventuality the exception laid down under section 195(1)(b) could have only been attracted and that provides