JUDGMENT

Agarwala, J - This is a criminal revision under Sections 435 and 439, Criminal P.C., for revising the order dated 23rd May 1941, passed by Mr. Pratap Shankar, Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow, dismissing the appeal of the present petitioner which had been filed by him under Section 476B, Criminal P.C., against the order of Rai Bahadur Jyoti Prasad, Magistrate, first class, Luck-now, dated 23rd September 1940. The present petitioner Chandra Kumar Dikshit's sister was married to the opposite party Pandit Ramesh Chandra Pandey on 5th. July 1937. According to the allegations of the petitioner, a sum of Rs. 8000 was agreed to be paid in connexion with the marriage out of which amount there were cash certificates of the value of Rs. 3500 in the name of the petitioner's sister, Rs. 3000 were to be paid at the time of gauna and Rs. 200 were to be spent otherwise, that when the marriage party reached the petitioner's house, the opposite party insisted on having Rs. 3000 in cash which were agreed to be paid at the time of gauna and the petitioner had to pay that amount to save the situation but it was agreed between the parties that that amount would be invested in the name of t the petitioner's sister, that the opposite party began to ill-treat his sister and so he brought her to his house and that there was an exchange of notices between the parties and ultimately the present petitioner filed a complaint on 15th April 1940, under Sections 406, 420 and 120B, Penal Code, against the opposite party and 26th June was fixed for the hearing of that complaint. That complaint is still pending. On 19th June 1940, Ramesh Chandra Pandey, opposite party, filed a complaint under Sections 347 and 506, Penal Code, against the present petitioner and an application under Section 100, Criminal P.C., was also g made on that very date and a notice was also issued to the present petitioner to produce the girl. The girl was produced on 20th June 1940, and was examined by Mr. Jyoti Prasad and after examining her, he dismissed the complaint. The petitioner had applied on 20th June, to Mr. Jyoti Prasad when he was producing his sister that the complaint was false and the opposite party should be prosecuted under Section 182.

2. After the complaint was dismissed the petitioner made an application on 1st July 1940, that the opposite party be prosecuted under Sections 182, 193 and 211, Penal Code. Mr. Jyoti Prasad was City Magistrate when he dismissed the complaint. He was subsequently Additional City Magistrate and under the orders of the District Magistrate the application of the present petitioner that the other side be prosecuted was transferred to his Court. Soon after Mr. Jyoti Prasad was made Sub-divisional Officer, Lucknow, and that application was again transferred to his Court under the orders of the District Magistrate. Mr. Jyoti Prasad refused to prosecute the other side. The present petitioner filed an appeal in the Court of the Sessions Judge but asked him to transfer the appeal to some other Court as he had heard a case between the parties in which cognate matters were involved. That appeal was then transferred to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge Mr. Pratap Shankar who dismissed it. The petitioner has now come in revision to this Court.

3. The first ground taken by the petitioner is that his appeal from the order of Mr. Jyoti Prasad refusing to prosecute the opposite party for the offence under Section 182 did not lie to the Sessions Judge and the Additional Sessions Judge was not competent to decide whether prosecution under Section 182 of the opposite party should be launched or not. It is argued on behalf of the other side that the applicant himself preferred the appeal and so he could not argue before the Additional Sessions Judge that no appeal lay to him. I think the consent of the parties cannot vest jurisdiction in any Court. Section 195, Criminal P.C., is divided into five Sub-sections and Sub-section (1) is further d