A complaint under Section 193 of the IPC for giving false evidence cannot be filed without there being a case pending in the court dealing with the matter.

Mr. M.P. Chinnappa, J. — Being aggrieved by the order dated 18.7.1996 directing to issue process to the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 193 IPC in P.C.R. No. 52/96 (C.C. No. 613/96) the petitioner filed this petition.

2. Heard.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner at the very outset submitted that there is a bar to take cognizance of the offence alleged against this petitioner under Section 195 (1)(b)(i) Cr.P.C. To appreciate the argument it i s necessary to succinctly put the facts of the case which are :

That the petitioner is running a private Nursing Home in Tiptur. One Smt. Mahalakshmi approached this petitioner for treatment due to some ailment. It appears that the petitioner has diagnosed it to be cancer and advised her to go to Kidwai Hospital at Bangalore. After several days the said Mahalakshmi died. It is alleged that she had 2 LIC policies wherein the respondent was nominated. After her death when the respondent approached the LIC, they declined to satisfy the amount due under those policies on the ground that the policy holder obtained policies by suppressing certain material particulars specially the disease with which she was suffering. As the amount was denied, the respondent approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tumkur, which was registered as DCFT 284/95, against the LIC of India. The matter is still pending in the District Forum. Before the matter was concluded, she approached the Criminal Court under Section 200, Cr.P.C.

4. The argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that where the offence is alleged under Section 193 the complaint has to be lodged by the Court which is dealing with the matter. The question arises as to whether the District Forum is a Court ? To substantiate that argument, he has drawn my attention to Section 13 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Sub-section (4) of Section 13 reads:

"For the purposes of this section, the District Forum shall have the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court under the CPC, 1908, while trying a suit in respect of the following matters, viz.:"

(they are enumerated in Sub-clauses (i) to (vi). Sub- section (5) clearly provides:

"Every proceeding before the District Forum shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) and the District Forum shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for the purposes of Section 195 & Chapter XXVI of the Cr.P.C., 1973 (2 of 1974)."

To put it shortly, the matter is pending before the Civil Court which has to decide as to whether the petitioner has wrongfully issued a certificate against the interest of this respondent to constitute an offence.

Similarly, in (AIR 1988 SC 2267) Baliram v. Justice B. Lentin, Their Lordships have held :

"Sub-section (3) of Section 195 of the Code provides that in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1), the term 'Court' means a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court, and includes a Tribunal constituted by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act if declared by that Act to be a Court for the purposes of this section."

5. The definition of 'Court' in the first part of Section 195(3) of the Code is, therefore, restrictive while the second is inclusive. It is contended that the definition of a word may either be restrictive of its ordinary meaning or it may be extensive of the same. Sometimes, definition of a term contains the words 'means and includes which may inevitably raise a doubt as to interpretation. According to the learned Advocate-General, the inclusive part of the definition of 'Court' in Section 195(3) of the Code was ex abundanti cautela and was merely declaratory of the law. It is submitted that the first part of Sub-section (4) of Section 5 of the Act fulfils the requirements of the inclusive part of the definition of 'Court' in Section 195(3) of the Code. Therefore, the Act was in line with Sub-section (3) of Section 195 of the Code, there was no occasion for Parliament to eff