The bar under Section 195 of Cr.P.C prohibits cognizance of certain offences without appropriate Court complaint; false evidence claims must show direct linkage to documents presented in Court.

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners being accused Nos.1 to 5 in PCR.No.3067/2020 (Crime No.206/2020) of Halasuru Gate Police Station, Bengaluru, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 191 , 192, 196 and 120-A of Indian Penal Code (for short ' IPC ') pending on the file of learned I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, are seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them.

2. Heard Sri. L M. Chidanandayya, learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt. Sowmya R, learned HCGP for respondent No.2 and Sri. M R. Narayan, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Perused the materials on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that petitioner No.1 is the Private Limited Company, petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are its Directors and petitioner No.5 is the employee in petitioner No.1 - Company. Respondent No.1 who had no authority filed the private complaint in PCR No.3067/2020 before the Trial Court alleging commission of the offences under Sections 191 , 192, 196 and 120-A of IPC . It is the contention of respondent No.1 that accused No.2 on behalf of accused No.1 had filed a complaint in CC.No.236/2017 before the Special Court for economic offences at Bengaluru under Section 452 of the Companies Act against him. The said complaint came to be dismissed discharging the accused therein as per judgment dated 18.03.2019. However, accused No.1 herein preferred appeal before this Court in Crl.App.No.827/2019 and the said appeal came to be allowed by setting aside the judgment passed by the Trial Court and directing the Trial Court to consider the case afresh.

4. It is the contention of learned counsel for respondent No.1 that he is in occupation of a residential house. Accused No.2 with active support and collusion with other accused conspired together to commit the offences. Accused Nos.1 to 5 concocted the lease deed signed by accused No.5, who is one of the witnesses. The fabricated and forged lease deed is produced before the Trial Court only to compel the Trial Court to register the complaint filed by accused No.2 on behalf of accused No.1 and the same has been produced in Crl.A.No.827/2019 to compel this Court to allow the appeal and to remand the matter back to the Trial Court for fresh consideration. It is contended by respondent No.1 that TDS certificate produced by accused No.2 and got marked as Ex.P6 does not belong to the rental receipts of the properties referred to in the lease deed. It is contended that the TDS certificate for Rs.18,00,000/- and Rs.12,00,000/- were the deductions that were made by accused No.1 in respect of the salary that was paid to respondent No.1 and there was no deduction from the value of perquisites and the value of rent free accommodation provided to respondent No.1.

5. Respondent No.1 contended that he took steps to test the veracity of the lease deed produced by accused No.2 before the Trial Court and obtained the same through RTI. Then he came to know about the offences committed by the petitioners in collusion with one another. Therefore, a private complaint came to be filed for the offences punishable under Sections 191 , 192, 196 and 120(A) of IPC .

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that petitioner No.2 is the owner of the residential premises, respondent No.1 was an employee under petitioner No.1 and he was provided with rent free accommodation by entering into a lease agreement with petitioner No.1. Even though, respondent No.1 resigned from his job on 08.10.2016, he had not vacated the premises, but was squatting over the same. Therefore, a private complaint in PCR.No.13/2017 was filed by petitioner No.1 against respo