Hon’ble Pankaj Naqvi, J.—Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.

Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Singh-II, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri R.P. Agarwal, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and learned A.G.A.

This criminal revision is preferred against order dated 18.1.2012 summoning the revisionist for an offence under Section 182 I.P.C.

2. The husband of the revisionist i.e. Anil Sonkar Shashtri lodged a complaint before D.I.G./S.S.P., Varanasi alleging that a plot in dispute was leased and allotted in the year 1999 by the State and possession delivered to the revisionist on 5.7.2010, from where she is allegedly carrying on her business. It further alleged that subsequently a dispute arose in respect of the aforesaid plot between the revisionist and opposite party No. 2 which led to the filing of a Writ Petition No. 47833 of 2010 by Banaras Export International of which O.P. No. 2 is the Managing Director, which is pending. It was alleged that on 11.12.2010, opposite party No. 2 alongwith his cohorts allegedly threatened forcible dispossession of the revisionists from the said plot on 11.1.2011, in which certain articles are alleged to have been taken away. On the aforesaid complaint, matter was enquired into, and it was found that as a civil dispute is pending before this Court between the parties over the said plot and as O.P. No. 2 and his wife were away to Dubai from 10.1.2011 to 14.1.2011 no police interference is required vide closure report dated 17.2.2011. Subsequently, opposite party No. 2 filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. alleging altercation and use of abusive language over the disputed plot. The learned Magistrate treated the application to be a complaint, and after recording the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. proceeded to summon the revisionist under Section 182 I.P.C.

3. The sole contention is that a criminal complaint under Section 182 I.P.C. is not maintainable at the instance of a private person i.e. opposite party No. 2.

4. Sri. R.P. Agarwal, learned counsel opposite party No. 2 submits that another co-accused namely Anil Sonkar (husband of the revisionist) was discharged by the Trial Court on 17.12.2013 against which a criminal revision filed by opposite party No. 2 is pending, hence revisionist be also relegated to avail the remedy to claim discharge.

5. Section 182 I.P.C. provides that whoever gives to any public servant any information which he knows or believes to be false, intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, such public servant - (a) to do or omit anything which such public servant ought not to do or omit if the true state of facts respecting which such information is given were known to him, or (b) to use the lawful power of such public servant to the injury or annoyance of any person, shall be punished.

6. Section 195 (1) (a) (i) Cr.P.C. provides that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code or abetment of or attempt to commit such offence or of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence except on a complaint in writing by the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate.

7. The cumulative reading of the aforesaid provisions is that a criminal complaint under Section 182 I.P.C. is maintainable only at the instance of a public servant and not a private person. Admittedly, opposite party No. 2 is a private person. If that be so, criminal complaint filed by him under Section 182 I.P.C. was completely barred and the Court was precluded from taking cognizance in view of the specific embargo under Section 195 (1) (a) (i) of the Code. Once a criminal complaint itself was not maintainable, this Court could not relegate the revisionist to claim a discharge.

In view of aforesaid discussion, revision is allowed. The order dated 18.1.2012 is quashed and so also the en