JUDGMENT

Jasjit Singh Bedi, J. - The present petition has been preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 03.10.2015 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hisar vide which the complaint of the petitioner-complainant has been dismissed and the order dated 22.04.2016 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, vide which the said order (Annexure P-1) has been affirmed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that FIR No.521 dated 27.09.2003 under Sections 148, 149, 323, 452, 506 IPC Police Station City Hisar was registered against Zile Singh (petitioner-complainant), his father-Surat Singh and others at the instance of Joginder Singh-respondent No.1.

3. On the conclusion of the trial, the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hisar vide judgment dated 17.01.2012 acquitted the petitioner/complainant and his co-accused.

4. Thereafter, the petitioner/complainant filed a complaint under Section 195 IPC against the accused-respondents with the allegations that the accused/respondents had known that, at the time of the alleged incident dated 27.09.2023, which was the subject matter of FIR No.521 dated 27.09.2003, the petitioner/complainant had been admitted in hospital and had been accompanied by his father-Surat Singh, and therefore, as the petitioner-complainant and his father had pleaded alibi which plea had been accepted leading to their acquittal, the accused/respondents had committed an offence under Section 195 IPC.

5. Based on the evidence led, the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hisar vide its judgment dated 03.10.2015 came to the conclusion that there was no specific finding recorded by the Court in its judgment of acquittal dated 17.01.2012 to the effect that the accusedrespondents had given false evidence against the petitioner/complainant and others. It also held that it was not every acquittal in a criminal case which would result into a subsequent litigation on the same lines as alleged in the instant complaint and the Court had to come to a categoric finding that proceedings under Section 195 IPC were to be initiated and proceed as per Section 195 Cr.P.C. It, thus, dismissed the complaint.

6. The petitioner preferred a revision before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar which also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 22.04.2016.

7. The aforementioned judgments are under challenge in the present petition.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant contends that the impugned judgments were liable to be set aside. In fact, the accused-respondents had initiated prosecution vide FIR No. 521 dated 27.09.2003 knowing that the petitioner-complainant had been admitted in the hospital at the time of the incident and his father-Surat Singh had been accompanying him. Not only had the accused-respondents given false evidence in Court but had also got false statements recorded before the investigating agency. Therefore, the petitioner-complainant was within his rights to institute the instant complaint without resorting to the provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C. He, therefore, contends that there was sufficient oral and documentary evidence on the record to summon the accused-respondents to face trial.

9. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner 10. Before proceeding further, it would apposite to refer to Section 195 Cr.P.C. and the same is reproduced hereinbelow:-

'Section 195 of The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973:-

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 admi