Judgement ORDER :- This application in revision arises in the following circumstances : 2. Sessions trial No. 85 of 1961 was held in the Court of the Temporary Sessions Judge of Mathura in which the opposite party Sulla was one of the accused under the various sections of the Indian. Penal Code. The trial related to the alleged kid-napping of the applicant Gir Raj from his Nohra in village Bathain. In this case Gir Raj was examined as a witness and he made certain statements which are the subject matter of a complaint against him filed by the opposite party under S. 500, I.P.C. The Sessions Trial ended in the acquittal of the opposite party. 3. In the proceedings started on the complaint of the opposite party, an application was made before the Magistrate for quashing the proceedings on the ground that the trial was barred by S. 195, Criminal P.C. and by the proviso to S. 132 of the Indian Evidence Act. The learned Magistrate, however, rejected that application and on revision the learned Temporary Sessions Judge of Mathura has concurred with him. The applicant has, therefore, now come up in revision to this Court against the aforesaid order of the Magistrate. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has raised two points in support of this revision. He has argued that as the impugned statement was made by the applicant before a Court of law, the only offence which can be charged against him on its basis, if at all, was covered by S. 193 or 195 of the Indian Penal code, cognizance of which was barred under S. 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the 'basis' of a private complaint. The second point raised by the learned counsel is that the applicant was protected under the proviso to S. 132 of the Evidence Act for having made that statement in Court. I do not find, however, any substance in these arguments. 5. The second point raised by the learned counsel is that the applicant was protected under the proviso to S. 132 of the Evidence Act for having made that statement in Court. I do not find, however, any substance in these arguments. 5. In the case of Basir-ul-Haq v. State of West 1953 SC 293 it was held that "as regards the charge under S. 500, Penal Code, it seems fairly clear both on principle and authority that where the allegations made in a false report disclosed two distinct offences, one against the public servant and the other against a private individual, that other is not debarred by the provision; of S. 195 from seeking redress for the offence committed him." 6. This principle of law applies with full force in the present case. Even if the statement made by the applicant before the Court of the Sessions Judge comes under the purview of S. 193 or 195, I.P.C. but if it also discloses an offence under S. 500, I.P.C., there is no legal bar for the aggrieved person to seek his remedy in a Court of law against the applicant. 7. As regards the second point raised by the learned counsel, the question is concluded by the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Chotkan v. State, reported in 1960 All LJ 668 : (AIR 1960 All 696). 8. Without going, therefore, into the merits of the allegations in the complaint, I find that there is no illegality in its entertainment by the learned Magistrate. 9. This revision has no force and it is dismissed. Revision dismissed.