( 1 ) THIS petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the Code) read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order, dated 26 August 1996, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, dismissing petitioner s revision petition against the Metropolitan Magistrate s order dated 19 April 1994, whereby petitioner s application for discharge on the ground that the private complaint filed against her by the respondent under sections 191/193/199 Indian Penal Code was hit by the bar created under section 195 (1) (b) (i) of the Code, as the complaint had not been filed by the court concerned, was dismissed.

( 2 ) MOHAN Singh, husband of Jaswant Kaur, petitioner herein, died on 2 February 1982, leaving behind certain assets, which included property no. 102a, Junk Market, S. P. Mukherjee Market, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi. On Mohan Singh s death, his mother, Harnam Kaur, the respondent herein, wrote to Delhi Development Authority (for short the DDA) seeking information about the latest position of the mutation of the said shop, which had been allotted to late Mohan Singh. Having failed to get any response from the DDA, the respondent instituted a civil suit against the petitioner for declaration and permanent injunction, inter alia, seeking a declaration in respect of her rights in the said shop and a direction to the DDA to enter her name in its records with regard to the said shop. The DDA was also made a party in the suit. In its written statement, the DDA disclosed that the petitioner had applied for transfer of licence rights in the shop in her name on the strength of an affidavit asserting that she was the sole legal heir of deceased Mohan Singh. The suit was, however, dismissed in default.

( 3 ) ALLEGING that by making a false dearation in the affidavit, filed with the DDA, describing her as the sole legal heir of Mohan Singh, before a public servant (an officer of the DDA), who was authorised by law to receive the same as evidence to the fact regarding the surviving legal heirs of Mohan Singh, the petitioner, Jaswant Kaur, had committed an offence under section 199 Indian Penal Code, punishable in the same manner as if she had given false information within the meaning of section 191 Indian Penal Code, the complaint in question was filed by the respondent. On being summoned, the petitioner filed an application for discharge on the plea that since the DDA officials were not authorised under law to receive any declaration/evidence, section 199 Indian Penal Code could not be invoked against her. The objection did not find favour with the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, who held that since the affidavit in question had not been filed in original before a court, section 195 Indian Penal Code of the code was not applicable. Criminal revision petition filed against the said order was also dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, holding that the DDA was authorised under the Hindu Succession Act to receive declaration from any person claiming the allotment in his or her name on the basis of his or her being the legal heir of an allottee. Hence the present petition.

( 4 ) I have heard Mr. Rajat Aneja, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. V. N. Sharma, Advocate for the respondent.

( 5 ) THOUGH in the petition the complaint under sections 191/193/199 Indian Penal Code has been challenged as null and void on various grounds but before me, taking of the cognizance of the complaint by the Metropolitan Magistrate was assailed by learned counsel for the petitioner, only on two grounds, namely, i) that the allegations in the complaint do not constitute an offence under section 193 or 199 Indian Penal Code and even if taken on face value these could at best make out a case under section 181/182 Indian Penal Code, for which, the complaint could be filed only by the public servant concerned or by some other public servant to whom he was administratively subor