A. K. GOHIL, J. ( 1 ) THE applicants have filed this petition under section 482, cr pc for quashing the impugned orders passed by the learned magistrate first class, indore in crl. Case no. 978/98 on 23. 6. 1999 and also thereafter the order persons in crl. Rev. No. 240/99 by the ivx a. s. j, indore, dismissing the revision by order dated 12. 1. 2000. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case in short are that the applicant/accused no. 1 is a registered co-operative society under the m. p. co-operative societies act, 1960 (for short hereinafter referred as the 'act') and the applicant-accused no. 2 was its president. The complainant-non-applicant pritpal singh is a member of said society. The complainant-non-applicant had taken loan of rs. 20. 000/- through applicant no. 1 society from m. p. state co-operative awas. sangh, bhopal after pledging his plot. The non-applicant failed to repay trie loan, therefore, the m. p. state co-operative awas sangh. Bhopal filed a dispute under section 84 of the act for recovery of the loan amount before the dy. Registrar, co-operative societies, bhopal against applicant no. 1 society and the non-applicant. The said dispute was decreed by order dated 14. 1. 1998 against the applicant no. 1 society and non-applicant complainant. ( 3 ) ON 21. 4. 1998 the non-applicant filed a private criminal complaint case against the applicants under sections 465 and 471 of ipc and after recording the statement of the complainant and also his witnesses malak singh and chandrashekhar sarwate under sections 200 and 201 of cr pc by order dated 2. 11. 1998 the case was registered and it was directed that the process he issued against the applicants. On 4. 1. 1998 the applicants, those who are accused-persons in the complaint filed an application under section 195. Cr pc setting therein that under the provisions of section 195 (b) (1) of the cr pc, the court of magistrate cannot take cognizance on this complaint and under the aforesaid provisions of section 195, cr pc the complaint is required to be filed by the court of dy. Registrar itself for the offence under sections 463, 471, 475 and 476 because the dy. Registrar itself for the offence under sections 463, 471, 475 and 476 because the dy. Registrar is a court and if the offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court the complaint can only be filed by the court itself. On this application arguments were heard by the learned magistrate and by order dated 22. 6. 1999 the learned trial court dismissed the said application which was filed under section 195, cr pc, on the ground that the dy. Registrar is not a court within the meaning of section 195 of cr pc. ( 4 ) THE applicants preferred a revision against the said order passed by the j. m. f. c. on 22. 6. 1999 before court of ivx. A. s. j. indore. The learned a. s. j. by order dated 12. 1. 2000 dismissed the revision on the ground that the dy. Registrar, co-operative societies is not a court within the meaning of section 195 of the cr pc, therefore, the order of the trial court is legal and justified and needs no interference. The petitioners have filed this petition under section 482, cr pc for invoking the inherent powers of the high court praying that with a view to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice this petition be allowed. ( 5 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the orders passed by the courts below and also record of the trial court. ( 6 ) THE submission of shri ba nigam and shri hardia, learned counsel appearing for the applicants is that the dy. Registrar exercising powers under section 84 of the m. p. co-operative societies act and passing a decree is a "court" within the meaning and for the purposes of section 195 of the cr pc. His second submission is that both the courts below have lost sight of this fact and have also not properly appreciated the decisions of this high court considering the question that the dy. Registrar, co-operative societies is a court within the meaning and for the purposes of section 195 of cr pc. This finding of both the courts below is absolutely contrary to the law that the dy. Registrar, co-operative societies is a court within the meaning and for the purposes of section 195 of cr pc. This finding of both the courts below is absolutely contrary to the law that the dy. Registrar, co-operative societies is not a court and his further submissions is that the contention of the complainant in the private complaint is that a decree under section 84 under the m. p. co-operative societies act has been passed by the dy. Registrar on the documents which are alleged to be forged and their genuineness was challenged before the dy. Registrar itself. Therefore, from a bare reading of the complaint itself the private complaint is not maintainable under the provisions of section 195 as when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of the documents produced or given in evidence in a proceedings in any court then no curt shall take cognizance of such a complaint except on the complaint in writing of that court. Therefore, under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the allegations alleged in this complaint process cannot be issued against these applicants and complaint was liable to be dismissed. Shri nigam cited number of decisions for quashing the complaint and also for invoking the inherent powers in this case under section 482, cr pc. ( 7 ) IN reply shri vr saraf, learned counsel appearing for the respondents pritpal singh, who is the complainant before then court of magistrate submitted that the dy. Registrar co-operative societies is not a court and he relied on a decision in case of chaparala krishna brahman v. Guduru goverdhaniah, reported in air 1954 mad 822 . ( 8 ) THE first question before this court to answer to whether the dy. Registrar appointed under the provisions of m. p. co-operative societies act is a "court", within the meaning and for the purposes of section 195, cr pc. In a contempt petition under article 215 of the constitution of india read with section 10 of contempt of courts act. A division bench of this court in the case of k,g. Ansari. Advocate v. S. p. agrawal, advocate and another, reported in 1989 mplj 36 , considering the various provision of the act has held that the dy. In a contempt petition under article 215 of the constitution of india read with section 10 of contempt of courts act. A division bench of this court in the case of k,g. Ansari. Advocate v. S. p. agrawal, advocate and another, reported in 1989 mplj 36 , considering the various provision of the act has held that the dy. Registrar while exercising the powers under section 64 of the act is a "court" and obviously it is subordinate to the high court. In the case of thakur jugal kishore sinha v. The sitamarhi central co-operative bank ltd. , air 1967 sc 1494 , their lordships of the supreme court held that assistant registrar. Co-operative societies was a "court" within the meaning of contempt of courts act; secondly that it was a court subordinate to the high court. 8-a. Section 195 deals with prosecution for 3 different group of offences, viz. , contempt of lawful authority of public servants, certain offences against public justice and certain offences relating to documents given in evidence. The second and third groups are connected in that both of them affect the administration of justice. Sub-section (3) specifically deals about the courts which reads as under :"in clause (b) of sub-section (1), the term "court" means a civil, revenue or criminal court, and includes a tribunal constituted by or under a central, provincial or state act, if declared by that act to be a court for the purposes of this section. " ( 9 ) IN the sub-section court means a civil, revenue or criminal courts and includes a tribunal constituted by or under a central, provincial or state act if declared by that act to be a court for the purposes of this section. Therefore, it is to be seen whether the court of dy. Registrar is a court within the meaning of sub-section (3) of section 195. To know the functions of the dy. Registrar as a court various provisions of m,p. Co-operative societies act have to be seen. The word "court" is not defined under the act. Under section 3 of the act dy. Registrar, co-operative societies can be appointed by the state government chapter vii relates to disputes and arbitration. Section 64 provides about the deciding of disputes by the co-operative officers. The dy. The word "court" is not defined under the act. Under section 3 of the act dy. Registrar, co-operative societies can be appointed by the state government chapter vii relates to disputes and arbitration. Section 64 provides about the deciding of disputes by the co-operative officers. The dy. Registrar in empowered to decide the dispute touching the constitution, management or business of a society or the liquidation of a society relating to the society on which he can register and decide the dispute under delegated powers. Section 65 provides limitation. Section 66 and 67 provides procedure regarding settlement of disputes and power of registrar, his nominee or heard of nominees. Section 68 further provides the powers to the registrar or his nominees, also to the dy. Registrar who is treated as a nominee of the registrar regarding powers of attachment before award and section 69 is about the winding of societies and liquidation. Section 77 provides provisions regarding filing of appeal against the order of the dy. Registrar to the registrar and thereafter to the state government and the state government has delegated powers of hearing the appeal to the board of revenue. Section 77-a further provides or deals with bar. Of appeal, revision of review in respect of certain orders. Section 82 bars the jurisdiction of the civil court in certain matters which are related to the co-operative societies act, section 84 provides powers for enforcement of charge and section 85 further provides for powers for execution of orders, section 88 provides indemnity to the registrarand other subordinate officers which includes dy. Registrar also for his acts done in good faith under this act. Section 89 specifically provides that the registrar or his nominee or board of nominees, or any other person deciding a dispute and the liquidator of a society shall have powers of the civil court under the code of civil procedure regarding the summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person or examining him on oath, required for the discovery and production of any documents, proof of facts by affidavits and issuing commissions for examination of witnesses and may also administer oath to the deponent. Section 90 further empowers the registrar or any person empowered bv him to be a civil court for certain purposes. ( 10 ) CONSIDERING the aforesaid powers conferred on the registrar through dy. Section 90 further empowers the registrar or any person empowered bv him to be a civil court for certain purposes. ( 10 ) CONSIDERING the aforesaid powers conferred on the registrar through dy. Registrar, co-operative societies under the provisions of the act whether the dy. Registrar who is passing an award under section 64 and enforcing charge under section 84 whether can be treated as "court" or tribunal on the basis of the essential requirements of court as settled by established principles. The "court" is not defined either under the code of civil procedure of the code of criminal procedure or in any act of the legislature but as pointed out in the holsbury's laws of england:"the word "court" originally meant the king's palace but subsequently acquired the meaning of (1) a place where justice was administered, and (2) the person or persons who administer it. In the evidence act, it is defined as including all judges and magistrates and all persons except arbitrators legally authorised to take evidence. This definition is by no means exhaustive and has been framed only for the purposes of the act. There can be no doubt that to be a court, the person or persons who constitute it must be entrusted with judicial functions, that is, of deciding litigated questions according to law. However, by agreement between parties arbitrators may be called upon to exercise judicial powers and to decide a dispute according to law but that would not make the arbitrators a court. It appears to me that before a person or persons can be said to constitute a court, it must be held that they derive their powers from the state and are exercising the judicial powers of the state. ""a court is defined in coke on littleton as a place wherein justice is judicially administered. In every court, there must be at least three constituent parts the actor, reus and judex the actor, or plaintiff, who complains or an injury done; the reus, or defendant, who is called upon to make satisfaction for it; and the judex, or judicial power, which is an examine the truth of the fact, and to determine the law arising upon that fact, and if any injury appears to have been done, to ascertain, and by its officers to apply, the remedy. " court is a body in the government to which the public administration of justice is delegated, an organised body, with defined powers, meeting at certain times, and places, for the hearing and decision of causes and other matters brought before it, and aided in this, its proper business, by its proper officers, viz. , attorneys and counsel, to present and manage the business, clerks to record and attest its acts and decisions, and ministerial officers to execute its, commands and secure order in itsproceedings. "by "courts" meant courts of civil judicature and by 'tribunals", those bodies of men who are appointed to decide controversies arising under certain special laws. Among the powers of the state is included the power to decide such controversies. This is undoubtedly one of the attributes of the state, and is aptly called the judicial power of the state. In the exercise of this power, a clear division is thus noticeable. Broadly speaking, certain special matters go before tribunals, and the residence goes before the ordinary courts of civil judicature. Their procedures may differ, but the functions are not essentially different. What distinguishes then has never been successfully established. Lord stamp said that the real distinction is that courts have "an air of detachment". But this is more a matter of age and tradition and is not of the essential. ( 11 ) IN case of bnjnandan sinha v. Jyoti narain, air 1956 sc 66 , it was observed by the supreme court as under ; the word "court" is not defined in the contempt of courts act. 1952 and the expressions court subordinate to the high court in section 3 (1) of the contempt of courts act would prima facie mean the courts of law subordinate to the high court in the hierarchy of the -courts. . . . . . . section 3, evidence act, 1872 defines "court" including all judges and magistrates and all persons, except arbitrators, legally authorised to take evidence. This definition, however, has been held to be not exhaustive, it has been framed only for the purpose of the evidence act and is not to be extended where such an extension is not warranted. A commission appointed under the public servants (inquiries act, 1850) is not a court within the meaning of the contempt of courts act, 1952. This definition, however, has been held to be not exhaustive, it has been framed only for the purpose of the evidence act and is not to be extended where such an extension is not warranted. A commission appointed under the public servants (inquiries act, 1850) is not a court within the meaning of the contempt of courts act, 1952. " ( 12 ) IN the cage of ramarao and another v. Narayan and another, air 1969 sc 724 , the question arose whether under the provisions of maharashtra co-operative societies act a nominee of registrar appointed under section 95 of the act is a "court" within the meaning of section 195 of cr pc. After considering the decision of case of thakur jugalkishore sinha v, sitamurthi central co-operative bank ltd. , air 1967 sc 1494 and also considering the decision in case of lalji naridas v. State of maharashtra, air 1964 sc 1154 and brynandan sinha, air 1956 sc 66 and in the case verindar kumar satyawadiv. State of punjab. Air 1956 sc 153 , which is directly related with the point of dispute involved in this case and it has been held as under : "section 195 (2) of the code of criminal procedure enacts that the terms court" includes a civil revenue or criminal court, but does not include a registrar or sub-registrar under the indian registration act, 1877. The expression "court" is not restricted to courts civil, revenue or criminal; it includes other tribunals. The expression "court" is not defined in the code of criminal procedure, under section 3 of the indian evidence act "court" is defined as including "all judges and magistrates, and all persons, except arbitrators, legally authorised to take evidence". But this definition is devised for the purpose of the evidence act and will not necessarily apply to the code of criminal procedure. The expression "court of justice" is defined in the indian penal code by section 20 as denoting "a judge who is empowered by law to act judicially as a body, when such judge or body of judges is acting judicially. That again is not a definition of the expression "court" as used in the criminal procedure code. The expression "court" in ordinary parlance is a generic expression and in the context in which it occurs may mean a "body or organization" invested with power, authority or dignity. That again is not a definition of the expression "court" as used in the criminal procedure code. The expression "court" in ordinary parlance is a generic expression and in the context in which it occurs may mean a "body or organization" invested with power, authority or dignity. Inhalsbury's law of england 3rd exl. , vol. 9, article 8o9 at p. 342 it is stated :"originally the term"court" meant, among other meanings. the sovereign's place; it has acquired the meaning of the place where justice is administered and, further, has come to mean the persons who exercise judicial functions under authority derived either immediately or mediately from the sovereign. All tribunals, however are not courts, in the sense in which the term is here employed, namely, to denote such tribunals as exercise jurisdiction over persons by reason of the sanction of the law. And not merely by reason of voluntary submission to their jurisdiction. Thus, arbitrators, committees of clubs and the like, although they may be tribunals exercising judicial functions, are not courts in this sense of that term. On the other hand, a tribunal may be a court in the strict sense of the terms although the chief part of its duties is not judicial parliament is a court. Its duties are mainly deliberative and legislative; the judicial duties are only part of its functions. " ( 13 ) IT has been further held as under :"a tribunal is not necessarily a court in the strict sense of exercising judicial power because (1) it gives a final decision. (2) hears witnesses on oath; (3) two or more contending parties appear before it between whom it has to decide; (4) it gives decisions which affect the rights of subjects; (5) there is an appeal to a court; and (6) it is a body. (2) hears witnesses on oath; (3) two or more contending parties appear before it between whom it has to decide; (4) it gives decisions which affect the rights of subjects; (5) there is an appeal to a court; and (6) it is a body. Many bodies are not courts although they have to decide questions, and in so doing have to act judicially, in the sense that the proceedings must be conducted with fairness and impartiality, such as the former assessment committees, the former court of referees which was constituted under the unemployment insurance acts, the benches of the inns of court when considering the conduct of one of their members, the disciplinary committee of the general medical council when considering questions affecting the conduct of a medical man, a trade union when exercising disciplinary jurisdiction over its members, or the chief officer of a forge exercising discipline and over members of the force. ""a body required to act judicially in the sense that its proceedings must be conducted with fairness and impartiality many not therefore necessarily be regarded as a court. " ( 14 ) IT has further been held as under :"the nominee of the registrar acting under section 96 performs the functions substantially of an arbitrator to whom a dispute is referred for adjudication. The registrar may appoint a single nominee on a board of nominees and may at any time, for reasons to be recorded in writing, withdraw such dispute from the nominee, or board of nominees and may decide the dispute himself or refer it again for decision to another nominee, or board of nominees, appointed by him. Under sub-section (3) of section 93, it is open to the registrar to suspend proceedings in regard to any dispute, if the question at issue between a society and a claimant or between different claimants, if one involving complicated questions of law or fact. The jurisdiction of the nominee or board of nominees arises by reason not of investment by statute, but by appointment made by the registrar who exercise control over the proceeding. The nominee therefore derives his authority from his appointment by the registrar; the registrar is entitled to withdraw his authority; and the registrar may fix the time within which a dispute shall be disposed of; his adjudication is again called an award. The nominee therefore derives his authority from his appointment by the registrar; the registrar is entitled to withdraw his authority; and the registrar may fix the time within which a dispute shall be disposed of; his adjudication is again called an award. The nominee is even entitled to make a provision for the expenses payable to the registrar or to himself. It is true that the procedure of the nominee is assimilated to the procedure followed in the trial of a civil proceeding. The nominee has the power to summon witnesses, to compel them to produce documents and he is required to hear the dispute in the manner prescribed by the code of civil procedure. Thereby he is required to act judicially i. e. fairly and impartially; but the obligation to act judicially will not necessarily make him a court within the meaning of section 195 of the code. The position of a nominee of the registrar is analogous to that of an arbitrator designated under a statutory arbitration to which the provisions of section 47 of the arbitration act, 1940, apply. " ( 15 ) IN the foresaid decision in, the case of ramarao v. Narayan it has been held that the assistant registrar or the deputy registrar who are the nominee of the registrar appointed under section 95 of the act is not a "court" within the meaning of section 195, cr pc and hence a complaint in writing is not necessary before the magistrate can take cognizance of offences under sections 465 and 471, ipc alleged to have been committed in respect of document produced or given in evidence by a party to any proceeding before the registrar's nominee. After examining the aforesaid authorities it is clear that the co-operative officers exercising the powers under the co-operative societies act can be treated as court for the purpose of contempt of courts act but in general they are at per with arbitrators and the tribunal. " tribunals are also included with in the definition of "courts" under section 195 of cr pc, if declared by that act to be a court for the purposes of this section. In view of this special provisions in section 195 (3} the declaration in particular act is necessary for the application of this section then only those tribunals can be treated as courts. In view of this special provisions in section 195 (3} the declaration in particular act is necessary for the application of this section then only those tribunals can be treated as courts. But there is no such declaration available under the co-operative societies act of m. p. , for treating the dy. Registrar as tribunal within the meaning and for the purposes of section 195 of cr pc. ( 16 ) IN view of the aforesaid discussions, decisions and as per the direction in the case of thakur jugalkishore v. Sitamurthi central co-operative bank ltd. , air 1967 sc 1494 , it is clear that the assistant registrar discharging the function of registrar under the provisions of m. p. co-operative societies act is a "court" and subordinate to the high court within the meaning of contempt of courts act but in view of the decision in the case of ramarao supra air 1969 sc 724 , the nominee of the registrar under the act is not a "court" within the meaning. and for the purposes of section 195. Cr pc hence, the complaint in writing by the registrar or dy. Registrar is not, necessary before the magistrate for taking cognizance. ( 17 ) UNDER the cr pc there is no provision for filing second revision. The second revision is barred under the cr pc and as per the settled law, even the petition under section 482 is not maintainable under the garb of second revision. The learned counsel for the petitioner cited the decision in the case of keshub mahindra v. State o/m. p. , reported in 1996 jlj 702 and also the decision in court of krishnon and anotherv. Krishnaveniand another, reported in 1997 (1) mplj 290 in which under section 482 while exercising inherent powers in appropriate cases the high court may consider invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction in appropriate cases where the orders passed by the courts below are manifestly illegal and amounts to misuse of powers. Though. High court should exercise the inherent powers under section 482 sparingly to prevent the abuse of process or miscarriage of justice and to correct irregularities committed by inferior court in its judicial process -. The supreme court in case of ramoroo (supra) he already ruled that the nominee of registrar is not a "court" under the act within the meaning and for the purposes of section 195 of cr pc. The supreme court in case of ramoroo (supra) he already ruled that the nominee of registrar is not a "court" under the act within the meaning and for the purposes of section 195 of cr pc. Therefore, it cannot be said that this is a fit case for invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction under section 482. The orders passed by the two courts below, though not elaborated on the question of law but are also not person illegal and needs no interference by this court under its inherent powers. ( 18 ) ACCORDINGLY this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed. .