ORDER :

1. The petitioners have questioned the legality and validity of the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur in Complaint Case No. 2670/2015 dated 30.11.2015, whereby cognizance has been taken of a complaint filed by the respondent against the petitioners for commission of offence punishable under Sections 191, 192, 193, 196, 120-B read with Section 34 of IPC.

2. It is undisputed that the petitioner No. 1 is the husband of the respondent and their marriage was solemnized on 23.05.2010.

3. The facts of the present case in a nutshell are that barely after two months of marriage, on account of a certain dispute, the respondent left her matrimonial house and thereafter, the petitioner No. 1 made a complaint making imputation on the character of the respondent to the President of his community on 08.10.2010 and on 16.06.2011, he filed a petition for dissolution of marriage, whereas the respondent filed Misc. Judicial Case No. 8/2012 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance before the Family Court, Raipur. In a proceeding under MJC No. 8/2012, the respondent examined herself as witness No. 1, whereas petitioner No. 1 examined himself along with two other witnesses as witness No. 1 to 3 respectively. Vide order dated 18.06.2014; the learned Family Court passed the order in favour of the respondent in a proceeding initiated under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.

4. On 26.10.2015, the respondent preferred a complaint case under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. alleging therein commission of offence punishable under Sections 191, 192, 193, 196, 120-B read with Section 34 of IPC against the petitioners on the ground that in the proceedings of MJC No. 8/2012, the petitioners adduced false evidence with regard to her character and certain other facts and thus prayed for taking cognizance of the offence against the petitioners.

5. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, after examination of the respondent, came to conclusion that there is sufficient material on record for taking cognizance of offence punishable under Sections 193 and 120B read with Section 34 of IPC against the petitioners and an order to this effect was passed on 30.11.2015 in Complaint Case No. 2670/2015. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 30.11.2015 in the instant petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class has taken cognizance of the complaint made by the respondent in a manner not known to law and without following the due process of law. He would further submit that the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint, as Section 195 read with Section 340 of Cr.P.C. prohibits taking of cognizance directly on any complaint, except on the complaint in writing made by the court concerned or any officer of the court authorized in that behalf. He would further submit that the exercise of power by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class is hit by provisions of Section 461 of Cr.P.C. particularly Section 461(k) of Cr.P.C. therefore, the entire proceeding is vitiated. His next submission is that in the present case, the complaint has been filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class directly without there being any finding recorded by the Family Court. He would next contend that the complaint case filed by the complainant was not maintainable at all as it was not supported by an affidavit and thus the prosecution of the petitioners would be an abuse of process of law. He would pray to set aside the order dated 30.11.2015 and to quash the entire proceedings of the Complaint Case No. 2670/2015 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur. He has placed reliance upon the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of K.T.M.S. Mohd. and Another vs. Union of India, (1992) 3 SCC 178, State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, Pepsi F