JUDGMENT (Oral)

D.P. Sood, J. - Petitioners were witnesses in a criminal case under SectionsJ95, 323, 148 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and Shri Kewal Krishan was One of the accused therein. On the conclusion of the criminal case, it appears that the accused were acquitted whereupon, Kewal Krishan aforesaid moved an application, alleging by giving details of the commission of offence Under Section 211 I.P.C.

2. On considering the application,- the 1eamed Sessions Judge was of the opinion that in the interest of justice, the ,offence should be enquired into. He made a preliminary inquiry and consequently, sent a complaint in writing under his signatures to the learned Chief judicial Magistrate alongwith statements of P.Ws. 1 to 3, 6 and 8 as also D.W. 1 alongwith the complaint, besides documentary evidence in the form of Ex. D .E. Ex. P.D. with the copy of judgment dated 21.2.1994. S/Sh. Kewal Krishan (applicant).and Harbans Lal (D.W.1) were cited as witnesses alongwith the Clerk of the Court of the learned Sessions Judge. The complaint was sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for its disposal in accordance with law. Simultaneously, petitioners/accused were directed to appear before the concerned Court on 15.6.1994. Petitioners failed to put in appearance which resulted in the issuance of non-bailable warrants against them.

3. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of an application under Section 438 Cr. P.C., seeking grant of anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest Pursuant to the non-bailable warrants issued to each one of them by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate.

4. Shri Kewal Krishan, aforesaid put in appearance through Shri Ajay Sharma, Advocate. Learned counsel for the petitioners have raised an objection with respect to the locus-standi of Shri Kewal Krishan or his learned counsel to intermeddle with the proceedings pending before this Court. The said objection has given rise to the question as to whether a third party who moves an

application under Section 340 of the Code to the Court for taking action against the accused in accordance with law after the preliminary inquiry is held and the complaint in writing is sent by the concerned Court, (Sessions Judge, in the instant case) to the Court of a Magistrate 1st Class (Chief Judicial Magistrate in the instant case) is entitled to intermeddle in the subsequent proceedings arising out of the order passed in such a case?

5. It is well settled that Section 340 of the Code lays down a complete procedure for dealing with such applications. As a matter off act, both Sections 195 and 340 are closely connected and they should be read together. The two sections are supplement to each other. The moment a third party i.e. any person connected with the proceedings before that Court, moves an application under Section 340 of the Code for taking action in accordance with law against the alleged offender and such application is considered by that Court favorably after holding preliminary inquiry and as a sexual thereto, a complaint under, the signatures of such Court is then sent to the Magistrate 1st Class with a prayer to take action in accordance with law, such person (Kewal Krishan in the instant case) becomes functus officio inasmuch as :

i) such person (applicant) becomes a witness in the complaint;

ii) complaint by the Court and that of the private party are to be treated at par and same procedure as laid down by the Code has to be applied in terms of Section 200 of the Code for the purpose of directing the dismissal thereof or for issuance of process as envisaged under Sections 203 and 204 of the Code, respectively.

I am fortified in taking this view by the language of Section 341 of the Code where under in case the application of such a person is rejected or such Court dealing with the main case refuses to file a complaint against the alleged offender for the commission of the offence covered under Section 1