Mishra, J :- 1. This is a revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, filed against order dated 25-2-1977, passed by the First Additional District Judge, Gwalior, in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 38 of 1976, arising out of order dated 29-6-1976. passed by the Third Civil Judge Class II, Gwalior in Execution Case No. 91-A/67-76, ordering criminal prosecution of the decree-holder-applicant under section 195(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) for having committed offence punishable under section 182 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The facts essential for the decision of the revision are as under:

(i) The decree holder-applicant has obtained a compromise decree for eviction against Guru-Dattamal on 28-8-1968, which provided inter alia that the suit house will be vacated by 13-4-1971. Diwanchand was a consenting party to application for compromise submitted by the parties.

(ii) This decree was put in execution., warrants for possession and attachment were issued. When the warrarnts were being executed, Layakchand, non-applicant (Grand son of Guru Dattamal) caused obstruction in delivery of possession Thereafter, on 12-5-1972, Layak Chand along with Diwan Chand Bhagwandas and Madanlal submitted an application on the ground that they are not bound by the decree. Stay of the execution of decree was also prayed for. Thereupon, the executing Court passed an ex parte order staying the execution of the decree. The decree-holder applicant opposed this application. By order dated 9-10-1972, the Executing Court confirmed the ex-parte stay order on the condition of depositing Rs. 150/- per month as rent until decision of the application.

(iii) Aggrieved by the imposition of the aforesaid condition, the non-applicant Layak Chand along with Diwanchand and Madanlal preferred Civil Revision No. 471 of 1972. In this revision this Court passed an order on 22-12-1972 to the effect that:

"Meanwhile, although the proceeding in the executing Court shall not be stayed, the order of the executing Court directing the petitioners to deposit Rs. 150/- per month as rent shall remain stayed until the disposal of this revision, provided the petitioners furnish solvent security by December 27, 1972, for depositing rent at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month for the period from 12-5-1972 to the date of the decision of this revision, in case the revision is dismissed."

Ultimately, this revision was dismissed by this Court, vide order dated 3rd March, 1976, subject to certain observations made in para 10 thereof.

(iv) Thereafter, the decree-holder submitted an application dated 6-3-1976 to the Executing Court wherein it was stated that the execution proceedings were stayed by the order of the High Court Civil Revision No. 471 or 1972 has been dismissed by the High Court on 3-3-1976. The amount of Rs. 22,303.10 p is due from the judgment debtor and possession has also to be delivered to the decree-holder. Accordingly, it was prayed that warrant for possession of the house and attachment of Immovable property of the Judgment debtor be issued.

(v) On the basis of the aforesaid application, by order dated 19-3-1976 issuance of warrant of delivery of possession and attachment was ordered.

(vi) By application dated 24-3-1976, Layak Chand and other prayed for setting aside of the order of Issuance of warrant on the ground that the execution proceedings had been stayed by the Court. The stay order passed by the Executing Court is still in force and it appears that the decree holder has by practising fraud on the Court obtained order of issuance of warrant.

(vii) The decree-holder also submitted another application under Order 21 rule 35, CPC, praying for execution of the warrant for possession and attachment in absence of the Judgment-debtor. On 24-3-1976; the Executing Court passed orders on the application of the non applicant, as well as the decree-holder to the effect, that the decree-holder has, by suppression of th