JUDGMENT C.D. Parekh, J. - The applicants have been charged by the Munsif Magistrate, First class, Meerut, for an offence under sections 323, 342 and 211, I.P.C. The facts of the case may briefly be stated thus- That a complaint was lodged by one Baljeet Singh who is the khazanchee of the Co-operative Society, formed under the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act. It has been alleged in the complaint that the complainant committed theft of papers from the office of the applicant Daya Ram, Assistant Development Officer knowing that there was no just or lawful ground for removal of the papers and in process of removal the applicants caused simple hurts to Baljeet Singh and wrongfully confined him. Against the charges the applicants preferred a revision before the learned Civil and Sessions Judge, Meerut, who after hearing the applicants dismissed the revision. Aggrieved by the order of the Sessions Judge the applicants have preferred this revision for quashing of the charges framed against them by the Munsif Magistrate. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants. It has been contended before me that in view of the provisions of Sections 195 and 197 Cr.P.C. no cognizance could have been taken by the Munsif Magistrate nor the Munsif Magistrate could have framed charges under section 323 and 342 I.P.C. So far as S. 197 Cr. P.C. is concerned the applicants although being public servants had no right either to cause simple hurts to the complainant or to confine him wrongfully. These acts are not the acts which the applicant Daya Ram was to discharge in his official capacity and therefore, no sanction under section 197 was required. As for the charge under section 211, I.P.C. it has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that a complaint in writing was necessary to charge the applicant Daya Ram for an offence under section 211, I.P.C. I have not been able to appreciate as to how under the provisions of S. 195 I.P.C. a complaint in writing was required to be made by the informant. Sub-cl. (a) of Section 195 I.P.C. does not apply in the case and sub-cl. (b) of S. 195 I.P.C. envisages a complaint in writing by a court and not by any other person. Sub-cl. (a) of Section 195 I.P.C. does not apply in the case and sub-cl. (b) of S. 195 I.P.C. envisages a complaint in writing by a court and not by any other person. The Khazanchee of the Cooperative Society was not a court and therefore, he could very well invoke the jurisdiction of a criminal court for an offence under section 211, I.P.C. which has been alleged to have been committed by the applicant. Nothing has been pointed out to me to hold that the Munsif Magistrate wrongly took the cognizance of the complaint and wrongly framed charge under section 211 I.P.C. against the applicant Daya Ram. 3. In these circumstances, there is no force in this revision application and it is accordingly dismissed. The stay order dated 8th December, 1969 is hereby vacated.