JUDGMENT

Jasjit Singh Bedi, J. (Oral). - The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the order dated 09.10.2015 (Annexure P-1) and the order dated 08.02.2017 (Annexure P-2) vide which the application and appeal (respectively) of the petitioner under Section 340 Cr.P.C. read with Section 195 Cr.P.C. for registering the complaint against the respondent-accused under Section 191, 192, 193, 199, 200, 209, 120-B of the IPC has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case as emanating from the petition are that the petitioner and respondent Nos.1 and 2 are real brothers. The petitioner filed a civil suit for possession by way of partition and permanent injunction against the respondents in the year 2012. During the course of the said proceedings, the respondents filed their written statement, reply to the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 and an affidavit, wherein they are said to have willfully/intentionally denied the ownership of the petitioner of the land in question. A true translated copy of the affidavit of respondent-Rai Singh was attached as Annexure P-4.

3. The said civil suit was decreed and decided in favour of the petitioner on 15.03.2014 (Annexure P-3). The petitioner thereafter, filed an application under Section 340 read with Section 195 Cr.P.C. for registering a complaint against the respondents under Sections under Section 191, 192, 193, 199, 200, 209, 120-B of the IPC for making a false complaint in the Court knowing the same to be false before the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phul. The said Court dismissed the application of the petitioner vide order dated 09.10.2015 (Annexure P-1).

4. The petitioner thereafter, preferred an appeal against the said order before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda. The said Court also dismissed the appeal of the petitioner vide order dated 08.02.2017 (Annexure P-2).

5. The petitioner has sought quashing of the aforementioned two orders in the present petition.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner firstly contends that the impugned orders are against the settled proposition of law. He contends that by filing the affidavit (Annexure P-4), wherein, the respondents had willfully and intentionally denied the ownership of the petitioner, they knowingly gave a false declaration on oath in the witness-box and therefore, had clearly committed an offence for which they ought to have been proceeded against. He also contends that the learned Courts committed a grave error by concluding that the respondents were not legally bound to state the truth on oath by any specific provision of law. It was contended that as per the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, a legal duty was cast upon the persons filing plaints etc. to speak the truth and a person is under a legal obligation to verify the facts stated in the plaints and pleadings. If a false verification was made, he was liable for action under the provisions of the IPC. It was contended that the sworn affidavits of the witnesses amounted to sworn statements, where, the witness was under an obligation to state the truth and therefore, the impugned orders ought to be set aside and appropriate proceedings be initiated against the respondents.

7. Before proceeding in the matter, it would be necessary to examine the relevant provisions of law:

Section 195 Cr.P.C., reads as under:-

'195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence.

(1) No Court shall take cognizance-

(a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860 ), or

(ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence, or

(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate;

(b) (i) of any offence punishable und