ORDER

K.MURALI SHANKAR, J

 

  1. The Criminal Revision is directed against the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.1378 of 2024, dated 31.05.2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamudram, dismissing the petition filed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.

 

  1. The case of the petitioner/complainant is that his father Govindapandian has entered into a sale agreement with one

KulamMaideen and his wife Maboob Beevi in respect of the house property and vacant site situated in S.No.675 of V.K.Puram Part~I and subsequently, purchased the said property vide sale deed, dated 28.10.2004 after paying the valuable consideration; that his father had changed the tax assessment and was in possession and enjoyment of the same; that his father had then executed a Will, dated 25.11.2010 in favour of the petitioner-s mother and after the death of his father on 06.12.2010 Will came into force and the petitioner-s mother has become owner of the suit property; that the petitioner-s mother has then executed a settlement deed, dated 04.06.2012 in

favour of the petitioner and after necessary mutation, the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property; that the first respondent, along with his relatives conspired together and with an evil intention to grab the property, has filed the suit in O.S.No.5 of 2018 before the Sub Court, Ambasamudram; that the first respondent has given false evidence before the concerned Court with sole intention to grab the property; that the petitioner has lodged a complaint through online on 10.02.2024 on the file of the respondent police; that though the receipt came to be issued, there was no further action; that the petitioner has then sent a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli, but there was no further action and that therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file the present petition under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., for registration of the case and for investigation.

 

  1. The learned Magistrate has taken the petition on file in Crl.M.P.No.1378 of 2024 and upon perusing the petitioner-s affidavit and the petition and after hearing the counsel for the petitioner, has passed the impugned order, dated 31.05.2024, dismissing the said petition.

 

  1. No doubt, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order is a cryptic order and without any proper discussion, the learned Magistrate by observing that since the dispute is of civil in nature and that since there are no allegations and no cognizable offence is made out, dismissed the petition.

 

5.As already pointed out, the main compliant of the petitioner is that the first respondent with intention to grab the property, has filed a suit before the Sub Court, Ambasamudram and the gave false evidence. But in the prayer column, he has mentioned that the first respondent has committed the offences of cheating, impersonation and fabrication of documents and also giving of false evidence before the Court, punishable under Sections 191, 192, 193, 420 of IPC.

 

6.But in the body of the complaint, the petitioner has nowhere whispered about the impersonation and fabrication of documents, but has only referred about the evidence alleged to have been deposed before the Civil Curt and according to the petitioner, it is false evidence. Section 191 defines giving false evidence, whereas Section 192 defines fabricating false evidence and Section 193 deals with punishment for false evidence.

 

7.It is pertinent to note that the offence under Section 193 is non cognizable offence. As rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure bars the Court from taking cognizance of offence relating to the offence punishable under Sections 193 to 196 IPC, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court.

 

8.Section 195 sets out the mandatory pre~requisites that must be met before a court can take cognizance of the offences above referred. Section 340 defines the procedure to be followed by the Court in cases, where it desires to initiate prosecution for offence committed in relation to a proceeding before it.

 

  1. In the case on hand, admittedly, the petitioner has not approached the concerned Court, but only filed the above petition under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Moreover, as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), the petition filed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., does not disclose any cognizable offence.

 

  1. Considering the above and also taking note of the requirements under Section 195 r/w 340 of Cr.P.C., the dismissal of the petition filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C by the learned Magistrate cannot be found fault with. Hence, this Court concludes that the Criminal Revision Case is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

 

  1. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.