1. The petitioners herein through the medium of the instant petition

filed under Section 561-A Cr. P. C (482 Cr. P. C) are seeking

quashment of order dated 4^th June, 2018 (for short impugned order)

passed by the court of Special Mobile Magistrate (Electricity),

Batote (for short Magistrate) in a complaint titled as <Pritam Lal

and Ors. vs. Kuldeep Singh and Anr=.

2. The facts projected in the instant petition would reveal that a

criminal complaint came to be filed by the respondents herein

against the petitioners for commission of offence under Section 211

RPC alleging that the petitioners maliciously instituted criminal

proceedings against them with the intention to cause injury to them

and falsely charging them for having committed offence under

Section 452/323 RPC and that the petitioners vide Judgment dated

14^th December, 2017, came to be acquitted of the said offences.

3. The Magistrate upon entertaining the complaint filed by the

respondents herein is stated to have taken cognizance and issued

process thereof against the petitioners herein for the commission of

offences under Section 211 RPC.

4. The impugned order is being challenged in the instant petition inter-

alia on the ground that the court below did not appreciate the facts

and law in its correct perspective while passing the impugned order

and that the said order has been passed in breach of Section 195 (b)

IN THE HIGH C0URT 0F JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT JAMMU

CRMC No. 625/2018

CrlM No. 745/2019

IA No. 01/2018

Kuldeep Singh and Anr.

…Petitioner(s)

Through: Mr. Sunny Mahajan, Advocate

Vs.

Pritam Lal and Ors.

...Respondent(s)

Through: None

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE

ORDER

of Cr. P. C and that the Magistrate erred in not appreciating that the

petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case by the

respondents with an intention to cause injury to them and that in the

face of the allegations made in the complaint, same does not

disclose commission of alleged offence by the petitioners and that

the impugned order passed by the Magistrate is mechanical in

nature not sustainable in the eyes of law.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.

5.

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner,

cognizance of offence under Section 211 RPC could not have been

taken by the Magistrate in view of the provisions of Section 195 (1)

(b) Cr. P. C.

6.

To better understand the aforesaid contentions of the

counsel for the petitioners, it would be profitable to refer to Section

211 RPC read with Section 195 (1) (b) Cr. P. C here under: -

Section 211 RPC and Section 195 (1) (b) Cr. P. C

reads as under: -

<Section 211. False charge of offence made with intent

to injure. ---Whoever, with intent to cause injury to any

person, institutes or causes to be instituted any criminal

proceeding against that person, or falsely charges any person

with having committed an offence, knowing that there is no

just or lawful ground for such proceeding or charge against

that person shall be punished with imprisonment of either

description for a term which may extend to two years, or with

fine, or with both; and if such, criminal proceeding be

instituted on a false charge of an offence punishable with

death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for seven years

or upwards, shall be punishable with imprisonment of either

description for a term which may extend to seven years, and

shall also be liable to fine.=

<Section 195. (1) No Court shall take cognizance-

(b)

Of any offence punishable under any of the following

sections of the same Code, namely, Sections 193, 194, 195, 196,

199, 200, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211 and 228 when such

offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to,

any proceeding in any Court, [except on the complaint in

writing of that Court or by such officer of the Court as that