IMPORTANT POINTS:
A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out the case alleged against the accused. What is required is examination of the averments in the complaint to find out whether they constitute the ingredients necessary for the offences alleged against the accused- If the averments do not constitute the ingredients of the offences alleged against the accused, the criminal proceedings against the accused can be quashed by invoking the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code.

1. The petitioner is the accused in the case C.C No.2019/2014 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Wadakkancherry. The petition is filed by him under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') to quash the proceedings against him in the aforesaid case.

2. The case against the petitioner is based on the private complaint filed by the second respondent. The averments in the complaint are as follows:

One Radhakrishnan had instituted a suit against the complainant in the Munsiff's Court, Wadakkancherry as O.S No. 606/2003. The accused was examined as a witness in that suit. When the accused gave evidence in the suit on 07.11.2008, he made a false statement that he was a Deputy Tahsildar in the year 2003. The accused was actually working as a Village Officer during the period from 28.07.2001 to 04.12.2003. Due to the false statement given by the accused in the suit, the complainant sustained loss and also damage to his reputation. The act of the accused constitutes the offences punishable under Sections 193, 420, 403 and 408 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences mentioned in the complaint. After recording the statement of the complainant and his witnesses, the learned Magistrate found that a prima facie case was made out against the petitioner. The complaint was taken on file as C.C No.2019/2014 under Sections 193, 420, 403 and 408 I.P.C and process was ordered to be issued to the petitioner.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and also the learned counsel for the second respondent.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 193 I.P.C on a private complaint. Learned counsel also contended that the facts stated in the complaint do not constitute the other offences alleged against the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the second respondent conceded the position of law that the Magistrate could not take cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 193 I.P.C on the basis of a private complaint. But, learned counsel contended that the averments in the complaint disclose commission of the other offences alleged against the petitioner and therefore, the entire proceedings against the petitioner are not liable to be quashed.

7. Section 191 I.P.C states what amounts to giving false evidence. Section 192 I.P.C defines the offence “fabricating false evidence”. Section 193 I.P.C provides the punishment for giving and fabricating false evidence. Section 193 I.P.C has got two limbs. The first limb provides the punishment for intentionally giving false evidence or fabricating false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding and the second limb provides the punishment for committing such act in any other case.

8. The petitioner was working as a Village Officer in the year 2003. There is averment to that effect in the complaint. There is a specific allegation in the complaint that while the petitioner gave evidence before the Munsiff's Court in the suit O.S No.606/2003, he stated that he was a Deputy Tahsildar in the year 2003. These averments in the complaint, prima facie, disclose commission of an offence punishable under Section 193 I.P.C.

9. Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Code provides that no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, except on the complaint in writing of that Court or by such officer of the Court as that Court may authorise in writing in that behalf, or some other Court to which that Court is subordinate.

10. A bare reading of the provision contained in Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Code would show that a complaint as envisaged under Section 195(1) is absolutely n