JUDGMENT - S.S. PARKAR, J.:---This petition has been filed by original accused No. 3 for quashing the Criminal Case No. 166 of 1992 pending in the Court of JMFC, 5th Court, Thane. The above criminal case filed in the Court of JMFC, 5th Court, Thane is an instance of frivolous litigation entertained by the Magistrate on which process has been issued against all the accused. 2.The Criminal Case has been filed as a private complaint by respondent No. 3 for the alleged offences under sections 193, 196, 197, 199, 200, 202, 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The above offences pertain to giving false evidence, using evidence known to be false in the Court, issuing false certificate, making false statement in a declaration which can be received in evidence, using false declaration as true and intentional ommission to give information of offences by person bound to inform and for conspiring to commit the aforesaid offences. The said complaint for the aforesaid offences is filed on the following allegations. 3.The respondent No. 3 had filed Criminal Case No. 1058/83 in the same Court against respondent No. 4 for offence under section 420 in respect of the affairs of co-operative society of which the respondent No. 3 complainant and the respondent No. 4-accused were the members. That was also a private complaint. The above previous complaint was on board before JMFC on 22-10-1991 wherein application was made on behalf of the accused in that complaint who is respondent No. 4 herein for exemption from appearance on that day on ground that the accused had to attend the funeral of the union leader who was working in the same factory. Accordingly the exemption was granted. Those accused were working in Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. who is arraigned as accused No. 2 in the present complaint. According to the respondent No. 3 complainant false application was made for exemption before the trial Court in the earlier case on 22-10-1991 on behalf of the respondent No. 4 in order to attend the funeral of the union leader though he had attended the above factory on that day. He, therefore, addressed a letter dated 30th October, 1991 to the Factory Manager of Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. asking him to give letter stating that respondent No. 4 had attended the work on 22-10-1991. He, therefore, addressed a letter dated 30th October, 1991 to the Factory Manager of Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. asking him to give letter stating that respondent No. 4 had attended the work on 22-10-1991. A copy of the said letter is annexed at Exhibit A to the present complaint which appears at page 16 of the paper book of this petition. That letter was replied to by the petitioner on 5-12-1991 stating that it was a matter of private dispute between the complainant and respondent No. 4 who is their workman and, therefore, they did not wish to involve themselves in the matter. Thereafter the present complaint was filed being Criminal Case No. 166 of 1992 against the petitioner who was the Personnel Manager of Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. as accused No. 3 and the company as accused No. 2. The accused No. 4 in the said complaint is respondent No. 4 and his Advocate has been joined as accused No. 1 He is respondent No. 5 in this petition. 4.On registration of the said complaint process was issued to all the accused and, therefore, the petitioner has challenged the process issued therein in this petition. 5.There are several contentions raised in this petition on behalf of the petitioner. The said prosecution is challenged on the ground of want of sanction under section 195 of Criminal Procedure Code as the offences are alleged to have been committed in the Court of law i.e. in the Court of JMFC, Thane. The complaint is also challenged on the ground that no case is made out against the petitioner. 6.This petition is on board for hearing since long. It had reached for hearing number of times but the Advocate for the respondent No. 3 i.e. original complainant was not present. Before me also the matter has been appearing on the board since the month of August 1999. The same was not taken up for hearing out of turn though mentioned by Mr. Thakare for the petitioner as the Advocate for the respondent No. 3 complainant was not available. The matter was called out yesterday on 4th October, 1999 but the same was adjourned to today as the Advocate for the respondent No. 3 was not present. The same was not taken up for hearing out of turn though mentioned by Mr. Thakare for the petitioner as the Advocate for the respondent No. 3 complainant was not available. The matter was called out yesterday on 4th October, 1999 but the same was adjourned to today as the Advocate for the respondent No. 3 was not present. Today also when the matter reached in serial order the respondent No. 3 and his Advocate were absent and, therefore, the matter is heard in their absence and is being disposed of. 7.With the help of Mr. Thakare, I went through the complaint in Criminal Case No. 166 of 1992 filed by the respondent No. 3 along with its annexures being letter dated 30th October, 1991 addressed to the Factory Manager and the reply dated 5th December, 1991 given by the petitioner and also the copy of the application for exemption made on 22-10-1991 in the earlier complaint. So far as the petitioner and the company by name Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. are concerned i.e. original accused No. 2 and 3 respectively the allegations are made against them in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the complaint which read as follows : "11. The complainant says that the accused Nos. 1 and 4 who had relied upon the application dated 22-10-1991 and its contents/statement as true, which was known to be false in the absence of any documentary evidence from the accused Nos. 2 and 3 who were the proper person to provide such register of attendance dated 22-10-1991 under section 200 of the Indian Penal Code. 12. The complainant says that the accused Nos. 2 and 3 conspired with the accused Nos. 1 and 4 to commit an offence and when the accused Nos. 2 and 3 was served a letter by the complainant on 20-10-1991 the accused Nos. 2 and 4 intentionally omitted to give information of an offence, who is legally bound to inform and thus committed an offence under section 202 of Indian Penal Code." 8.Admittedly, the petitioner and the company were not accused in the earlier complaint and, therefore, they had no knowledge about the applicationor contents of the application dated 22-10-1991 made by one of their workers i.e. respondent No. 4. The allegation for having committed offence under section 200 as made in para 11 of the complaint is without any foundation. The allegation for having committed offence under section 200 as made in para 11 of the complaint is without any foundation. The allegations made in para 11 are confined to accused Nos. 2 and 3 i.e. the petitioner and the company. However, there is no allegation, in the said paragraphs or in the earlier paragraphs, that either of them had used or attempted to use as true any declaration knowing the same to be false and, therefore, the complaint itself does not make out any offence under section 200 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and the company. In para 12 of the complaint allegation is that petitioner and the company have committed offence under section 202 of Indian Penal Code pertaining to the intentional omission to give information of offence by person bound to inform. The only allegation made in para 12 to substantiate the charge for offence under section 202 is that they had intentionally omitted to give information of an offence when they were legally bound to inform and thus committed offence under section 202 of Indian Penal Code. The letter dated 10th October, 1991 was addressed to the Factory Manager of the Company asking him to give a letter to the effect that respondent No. 4 had attended the factory on that day which was replied to on 5-12-1991 stating that they did not want to interfere in the private dispute between the complainant and the accused i.e. respondent Nos. 3 and 4 respectively. The petitioner and the company, in my view, were not bound to furnish the information to anybody and everybody with regard to the workers employed in the company. If at all the complainant wanted to show that false application was made by the respondent No. 4 for exemption from appearance in the Court on 22-10-1991, he could have moved the Court for issue of summons against the employers to furnish the information. Instead of adopting that course he addressed a letter to the Factory Manager and asked him to issue letter stating that the respondent No. 4 had attended the duties on that day on the assumption that the allegation was true. Instead of adopting that course he addressed a letter to the Factory Manager and asked him to issue letter stating that the respondent No. 4 had attended the duties on that day on the assumption that the allegation was true. Perusal of the application dated 22-10-1991 would show that the worker could have attended both, the factory as well as the funeral of the Union Leader on that day as the person whose funeral was to be attended was none other than the Union Leader. Thus reading the complaint as it is no offence is made out against the petitioner and the company under sections 200 and 202 of Indian Penal Code. 9.That apart, the offences alleged against the accused in the impugned complaint pertain to the offences allegedly committed in the Court i.e. in the earlier complaint viz., Criminal Case No. 1058 of 1983 pending in the Court of JMFC, Thane, Mr. Raja Thakare, therefore has rightly contended that bar of section 195 of Criminal Procedure Code would operate in such cases and the cognizance could not have been taken except on the complaint in writing of that Court. Thus the complaint would not lie due to the bar under section 195 of Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, the process issued in the case is liable to be quashed against the petitioner and the company on the ground firstly, that no prima facie case has been made out against them and secondly because of the bar under section 195 of Criminal Procedure Code. 10.Mr. Mohite appearing for respondent No. 4 and Mr. Patil appearing for respondent No. 5 supported the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that the complaint is not maintainable even against respondent Nos. 4 and 5 due to the bar under section 195 of Criminal Procedure Code. They further, inter alia, submitted that when this Court had noticed that such complaint is not maintainable, this Court in its inherent powers should quash the complaint itself against rest of the accused too who are joined as respondents herein. Their submission appears to be correct and this Court should not hesitate to quash the complaint itself if it is found to be not maintainable due to the legal bar like section 195 of Criminal Procedure Code. However, two factors deter me from exercising my inherent powers to quash the entire complaint. Their submission appears to be correct and this Court should not hesitate to quash the complaint itself if it is found to be not maintainable due to the legal bar like section 195 of Criminal Procedure Code. However, two factors deter me from exercising my inherent powers to quash the entire complaint. They are, firstly, the absence of respondent No. 3 or his Advocate in this Court at the time of hearing who are aware only about the challenge having been made by the present petitioner. Secondly, the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 had not challenged the process either in this Court or in the trial Court by making application in that behalf. It is certainly open to them to apply to the learned Magistrate challenging the process issued on the ground of bar under section 195 of Criminal Procedure Code and if such application is made the Magistrate will have to consider that application first before proceeding further in the matter. 11.Mr. Thakare on behalf of the petitioner submits that this is a fit case for grant of special cost to the petitioner who was unnecessarily made to face this frivolous and absolutely untenable complaint. The submission is not without substance, when the petitioner had to unnecessary undergo the agony of facing this criminal case and had to file petition in this Court. In my opinion petitioner deserves to be awarded at least token costs of Rs. 500 payable by the respondent No. 3 original complainant. 12.In the result this petition is allowed and the Criminal Case No. 166 of 1992, pending in the Court of JMFC, 5th Court, Thane as regards the petitioner and the company i.e. original accused Nos. 3 and 2 respectively and the process issued against them is quashed and set aside. The respondent No. 3 original complainant is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 500/- in the trial Court towards the costs payable to the petitioner by the end of November 1999. When the said amount is deposited in the trial Court, the petitioner shall be entitled to withdraw the same. Mr. Thakare agrees that in case the petitioner does not withdraw the said amount within a period of three months of the deposit, the same shall be forfeited to the State. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Petition allowed. -----