Petition for revision filed u/ss 397 and 401 may be treated as petition u/s 482.

An important question of law, that too, of general importance is raised in these revisions. The question is this:

When the trial court is approached under Sec.340, Crl.P.C, requesting the said court to file the complaint against a person under Sec.195, Crl.P.C, can the court dismiss the same, without conducting a preliminary enquiry as required under Sec.340, Crl.P.C?

2. The petitioner Muralidhar was an accused in C.C. No.1883 of 1986, on the file of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras, in the case filed by the police for the offences under Secs.406 and 420, I.P.C., on the complaint of the 1st respondent Kishore Kumar P.Jain. After trial, the petitioner was acquitted on 3. 1989. Then he filed petitions in Crl.M.P. Nos. 184 to 186 of 1990, on 12. 1990, under Sec.340, Crl.P.C., requesting the court to exercise its powers under Sec.195, Crl.P.C, to present a complaint in writing to anyone of the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, in Madras, for taking cognizance of the offences under Sec.211 read with 120-B, I.P.C, against the respondents alleging that the 1st respondent Kishore Kumar P. Jain, in pursuance of the conspiracy hatched with the other respondents gave a complaint, with the false charge of offence made with intent to injure the petitioner before the trial court in C.C. No.1883 of 1986, which ended in acquittal.

3. These applications were dismissed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed appeals before the Sessions Court, Madras in C.A. Nos.82, 86 and 87 of 1990. The appellate court also dismissed these appeals on 28. 1990, confirming the view taken by the lower court.

4. The grounds of dismissal as narrated both by the lower court and the appellate court, could be stated as follows:

.(a) The petitions filed under Sec.340, Crl.P.C, and the original Judgment in C.C. No.1883 of 1986, which ended in acquittal do not show that the complaint made by Kishore Kumar P.Jain, the 1st respondent, was a false one, and the same was made with intent to cause injury to the petitioner.

.(b) The acquittal was on the basis that the charge was not proved beyond doubt. The trial court did not give any finding that the petitioner instituted the said complaint with the false charge of offence with intent to injure the petitioner.

.(c) Since the ingredients of Sec.211, I.P.C, are not attracted on the averments made in the petitions filed under Sec.340, Crl.P.C, the court cannot take action under Sec.195, Crl.P.C.

5. Aggrieved over the verdict of both the trial court and the appellate court, the petitioner approached this Court, by filing these revisions.

6. The above referred question of law, is being raised on different angles by Mr.G. Krishnan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner in the following manner:

.(a) When an application under Sec.340, Crl.P.C, requesting the court to take action under Sec.195, Crl.P.C, is made the court shall entertain, conduct a preliminary enquiry, and then give a finding, whether it is expedient to prefer a complaint for the offence under Sec. 211, I.P.C. or not without such a preliminary enquiry, the Magistrate, cannot straight away dismiss the petition.

.(b) To invoke Sec. 340, Crl.P.C, there need not be any finding in the original case by the trial court, with reference to the false evidence having been let in. It is all the more necessary for the lower court, in the absence of such finding in its judgment, to conduct a preliminary enquiry by giving opportunity to the petitioner to establish that a false case was instituted before the trial court, This alone would enable the lower court to consider the expediency to file the complaint under Sec. 195, Crl.P.C.

.(c) The Magistrate of course can take into consideration, the observation in the original Judgment, with reference to the finding about the false charge, in addition to the materials produced by the petitioner, only during the time, of the preliminary enquiry un