Point of Law :
Section 195 (3) of the Code deals with the term ‘Court’ as referred in Clause (b) of sub-section (i) of Section 195 of the Code means a civil, revenue or criminal court, and includes a Tribunal constituted by or under a Central or Provincial or State Act if declared by that Act to be a Court for the purposes of the said section.

JUDGMENT :

1. Mr. V. Ramesh Babu, an Advocate, the appellant herein, preferred the present appeal assailing the order of the Principal Sessions Judge, Khammam in Crl.M.P. No.369 of 2000 in M.V.O.P. No.98 of 1995 dated 05.06.2006.

2. The appellant herein filed O.P. No.98 of 1995 under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, for grant of compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- for the injuries said to have been received by his client i.e. Goggilla Papaiah on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Khammam (hereinafter referred as ‘MACT’). On 01.05.2000, the MACT, Khammam, passed an award dismissing the said O.P. But in the said award, MACT, Khammam, has given a finding that the appellant herein created an accident, produced fabricated documents in the Court and therefore, directed to initiate proceedings under Section 340 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is relevant to note that no appeal was filed challenging the said award dated 01.05.2000 in OP No.98 of 1995 passed by the MACT, Khammam, under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. However, proceedings were referred to the Bar Counsel of Andhra Pradesh, which ordered suspension of the appellant from practice for a period of five years, upon being found him guilty of misconduct as per its order dated 16.02.2002 in C.C. No.11 of 2001. It also appears from the record that the appellant herein preferred an appeal with Disciplinary Committee of Bar Council of India in D.C. Appeal No.44 of 2002 and the Bar Council of India vide its judgment dated 12.09.2004 set a side the said order dated 16.02.2002 passed by the Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh.

3. It appears from the record that pursuant to the Award dated 01.05.2000, MACT, Khammam, the Principal Sessions Judge, Khammam, initiated proceedings vide Crl. M.P. No.369 of 2000 in MVOP No.98 of 1995. After conducting enquiry, the Principal Sessions Judge, Khammam, passed an order dated 05.06.2006 allowing the said Crl.M.P., and directing to file a complaint in writing against respondents 1 to 3 therein including the appellant herein and the de facto complainant in Crime No.10 of 1994 of Mothugudem Police Station before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, having jurisdiction to take appropriate and proper criminal action against them on the ground that they have not only cheated the Government, but also tried to misguide the Chairman, MACT, Khammam, in preparing and producing the fake documents or giving false oral evidence to have wrongful gain for themselves. The said order dated 05.06.2006 in Crl.M.P. No.369 of 2000 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Khammam, is under challenge.

4. In the impugned order, the Principal Sessions Judge, Khammam, referred that matter came up before him and show cause notices were issued to the respondents therein as per the order dated 01.05.2000 in OP No.98 of 1995 of MACT, Khammam, which ordered to initiate proceedings under Section 340 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Code’) against the appellant herein with a view to file criminal complaint before the competent Judicial Magistrate of First Class and also against the persons responsible for commission of offence punishable under Sections 471, 174, 191, 192, 193, 196, 197 and 198 IPC. In the impugned order, the Principal Sessions Judge, Khammam, recorded the point that arise for consideration as to whether the Court must make a preliminary enquiry or complaint, if the Court decides to do so, whether that Court should make a finding that on facts it is expedient in the interest of justice that the offence should be further probed into.

5. As stated above, after conducing the enquiry, the Principal Sessions Judge, Khammam, vide order dated 05.06.2006 allowed the said petition with a direction to file a complaint in writing against the respondents 1 to 3 therein.

6. It appears from the impugned order that the Principal Sessions Judge, Khammam, conducted preliminary enquiry to come to a conclusion as to whether there w