The main legal point established in the judgment is that an application supported by an affidavit filed in court is not considered as evidence under the Evidence Act, influencing the decision to quash the impugned order.

This writ application has been filed for quashing the order dated 02.07.2005 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj, in O.C.R. No. 22 of 2005 corresponding to T.R. No. 355 of 2005, whereby and whereunder he took cognizance against the petitioner under Sections 193 & 199 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. It appears that the petitioner is informant of Borio Mirza Chowki P.S. Case No. 87 of 2001 corresponding to G.R. No. 200 of 2001. The aforesaid case was filed against one Bhanu Pratap Singh under Section 302 of the I.P.C. It further appears that aforesaid Bhanu Pratap Singh filed an application, before the Sessions Judge, Sahibganj, for grant of provisional bail, stating therein that he has to perform the rituals of the marriage of his daughter, which was going to be solemnized on 29.04.2005. It then appears that the said application of aforesaid Bhanu Pratap Singh has been allowed and he has been granted provisional bail. It further appears that on 30.04.2005 petitioner filed an application before the Sessions Judge, Sahibganj stating therein that the marriage of the daughter of aforesaid Bhanu Pratap Singh had been postponed prior to filing of application for provisional bail, but said Bhanu Pratap Singh, with a view to obtain bail, had given false statement in the court. The learned Sessions Judge, Sahibganj, after receiving the aforesaid application, directed the police to make an inquiry and submit report. It appears that the police, after making inquiry, submitted its report and stated therein that marriage of the daughter of Bhanu Pratap Singh was going to be held on 29.04.2005, but the same was postponed on 28.04.2005, because Bhanu Pratrap Singh has not been released from jail. It further appears that learned Sessions Judge, Sahibganj, after receiving the said report, had prima facie concluded that petitioner made wrong statement on affidavit. Accordingly, he conducted an inquiry under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. It further appears that learned Session Judge, Sahibganj recorded statements of eight witnesses. Thereafter vide order dated 21.06.2005 he came to the conclusion that petitioner committed offences punishable under Sections 193 & 199 of the I.P.C. Accordingly, he filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj against the petitioner. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, after receiving aforesaid complaint, vide his order dated 02.07.2005, concluded that prima facie offences under Sections 193 & 199 of the I.P.C. made out. Accordingly, he took cognizance against the petitioner. Aforesaid order challenged in this writ application.

3. Sri Jitendra S. Singh, appearing for the petitioner, submits that no offence under Sections 193 & 199 of the I.P.C. is made out, because an application supported with affidavit filed in a court is not an evidence within the meaning of Evidence Act. Therefore, it cannot be held that petitioner had laid any false evidence in judicial proceeding. Sri Singh in support of his contention has relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Smt. Sudha Devi Vs. M.P. Narayanan reported in AIR 1988 SC 1381 and judgments of Delhi High Court in Parkash Rai Vs. J.N. Dhar reported in AIR 1977 Delhi 73, Delhi Lotteries Vs. Rajesh Aggarwal & Ors. reported in AIR 1998 Delhi 332. Accordingly, it is submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained and liable to be quashed.

4. On the other hand, Sri R.P. Singh, J.C. to G.P.-II submitted that learned Sessions Judge, Sahibganj has passed his order on 21.06.2005 under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. and had concluded that prima facie offences under Sections 193 & 199 of the I.P.C. made out against the petitioner. He further submits that the aforesaid order has become final because no appeal filed against the same by the petitioner, as provided under Section 341 of the Cr.P.C. He further submits that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj by the impugned order only took cognizance against the petitioner as held by t