JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal misc. petition u/s 482 Cr.RC. seeks quashing of the order dated 20.3.2003 passed by the Learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tonk in Criminal Complaint Case No. 253/2003 whereby cognizance for the offence u/s 193 I.RC. has been taken against the petitioners. 2. Shorn of details, the brief facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are that one Rameshwar Khokhar working as Junior Accountant in Treasury, Tonk was residing in Government quarter No. T.R. 79, Civil Lines, Tonk. He moved an application before the Permanent Lok Adalat that the said quarter was in dilapidated condition. It requires immediate repairs relating to doors, electric fittings, white wash etc. and the road in front of the quarter also requires Tarcoal carpeting. The pressure in the water taps was also very low. Inspite of paying regular rent to the Department, the basic amenities of life are not being provided by it. A notice was issued to the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Tonk for 3.1.2003. On that day, his representative Mr. R.S. Bairwa, the Assistant Engineer appeared before the court. He did not file any written reply, but orally submitted that there being ban on the maintenance by the State Government circular dated 15.11.2002, required maintenance works could not be undertaken. A copy of the said circular was also produced. It appears that without insisting for a formal reply from the Department, the Court allowed the application of Mr. Khokhar and issued directions to do the necessary repairs of the quarter within a period of one month. Before the expiry of the afore-mentioned period of one month, the applicant moved another application i.e. on 14.1.2003 stating therein that the statement made by non-petitioner No. 1 on 3.1.2003 before the court was not true because by a subsequent circular dated 12.12.2002, the restrictions on the maintenance work were withdrawn which fact was in his knowledge. So, he prayed that he should be suitably punished. A notice of this application was also issued to both the petitioners on 15.1.2003 requiring them to submit their reply on 20.1.2003. On 20.1.2003 petitioner No. 1 submitted a reply to the application stating therein that due to non availability of the budget, the maintenance work of the said quarter could not be undertaken and prayed that application be dismissed. A notice of this application was also issued to both the petitioners on 15.1.2003 requiring them to submit their reply on 20.1.2003. On 20.1.2003 petitioner No. 1 submitted a reply to the application stating therein that due to non availability of the budget, the maintenance work of the said quarter could not be undertaken and prayed that application be dismissed. Petitioner No. 2 filed his reply on 7.2.2003 admitting that the circular dated 12.12.2002 was issued by the Chief Engineer, P.W.D., Jaipur wherein it was directed that no proposals for alteration/additions should be submitted before July, 2003 and extremely urgent repairs and maintenance may be got done departmentally from the relevant budget. A photostat copy of the aforesaid circular dated 12.12.2002 was also produced. Thereafter, the order dated 11.2.2003 was passed directing the Secretary of the Permanent Lok Adalat to file a complaint u/s 193 I.RC. against both the petitioners herein. The Secretary filed the complaint which has transferred to the Court of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tonk who registered the same and issued process against the petitioners. The petitioners appeared before the court and were released on bail. 3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has very strongly argued that from a bare perusal of the order dated 20.3.2003 it is apparent that there is no application of mind. The process has been issued in a mechanical manner without passing formal order of taking cognizance and even without filing of the list of witnesses. He has also contended that non-petitioner No. 2 was not present on 3.1.2003 before the court and he had not made any oral or written statement before the court. Still he was made an accused for the offence u/s 193 I.RC. From the facts alleged, no offence u/s 193 I.RC. can be said to be even prima facie disclosed. According to him this criminal prosecution was launched against the petitioners at the behest of the then District & Sessions Judge, Tonk who was himself Chairman of the Permanent Lok Adalat because he required the petitioners to lay paver road in his bungalow which work they could not accomplish. They, therefore, earned his wrath and this complaint is the out-come and fall-out of that wrath. They, therefore, earned his wrath and this complaint is the out-come and fall-out of that wrath. The grievance made in the application of Khokhar did not fall within the definition of "public utility service" and the entire proceedings taken by the Permanent Lok Adalat in this regard were illegal and without jurisdiction. The procedure adopted was also against the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (here-in-after in short referred to as `the Act') as no efforts were made for amicable settlement between the parties. 4. Learned P.R also could not controvert these contentions and candidly stated that the court may pass appropriate orders in the matter. 5. I have given my anxious and thoughtful consideration to the submissions made at the bar and have also perused the impugned order as well as the available materials. 6. A bare perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Permanent Lok Adalat has taken cognizance of the application made by Rameshwar Khokhar with regard to the maintenance and repairs of his quarter. From the impugned order dated 11.2.2003, it is not clear as to how this application was cognizable by the said Adalat and under what provisions of law. The application appears to have been entertained treating it to be a matter of "public utility service". But even a cursory look on the definition of "public utility service" given in Section 22-A(b) of the Act which was inserted vide Section 4 of the Legal Services Authorities (Amendment) Act, 2002 (37 of 2002) w.e.f. 11.6.2002 makes it abundantly clear that the application made by Rameshwar Khokhar does not fall within the definition of "public utility service". Such an application is neither provided for therein specifically nor it can be said to be included therein impliedly by any stretch of imagination. 7. So far as the filing of the complaint u/s 193 I.P.C. is concerned, it would be useful to extract here Section 191 I.RC. which defines 'giving false evidence' as under:- "191. Giving false evidence - Whoever, being legally bound by an oath or by an express provision of law to state the truth, or being bound by law to make a declaration upon any subject, makes any statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, is said to give false evidence." 8. It is a patent fact that non-petitioner No. 2 Shri Ajay Bhargava, Executive Engineer, was not present on 3.1.2003 before the Permanent Lok Adalat and he had not made any oral statement before the Adalat and no written reply was filed by him. He submitted his reply before the Adalat on 7.2.2003 and clearly explained the position with regard to ban of the State Government on the maintenance/repairs/additions/alterations of the quarters and the Adalat did not find this reply made by him false or untrue. It is astonishing that he was held liable for giving false evidence on 3.1.2003 when he was not even present. Indeed, there cannot be any more blatant and glaring instance of high handedness, gross abuse of the process of the court and traversty of justice to file a complaint against him for something for which he was not in any way responsible. 9. This complaint, therefore, is unsustainable against him. As regards the liability of petitioner No. 1. R.S. Bairwa, his name was wrongly mentioned in the impugned order as R.L. Bairwa. No doubt, he was alleged to have orally stated before the Adalat that in view of the State Government's circular dated 15.11.2002, a photo-stat copy of which was also furnished by him, there was restriction on maintenance/repairs of the Government quarters. He has in his reply filed on 20.2.2003 to the show cause notice issued on 15.1.2003 stated that the circular dated 12.12.2002 was received by him on 4.1.2003 i.e. a day after the date of hearing before the Lok Adalat i.e. 3.1.2003. The Permanent Lok Adalat has attributed to him knowledge of the circular dated 12.12.2002 on 3.1.2003 although he had specifically denied that, no probe in this regard was made before filing complaint against him. This apart, he was neither administered oath before his making oral statement before the Adalat nor he was by any express provision of law required to state the truth or to make a declaration in this regard. The mere fact that subsequent circular was issued by the State Government does not bring his act within the definition of Section 191 I.RC. No preliminary inquiry u/s 340 Cr.RC. was conducted before filing the complaint against the petitioners. The mere fact that subsequent circular was issued by the State Government does not bring his act within the definition of Section 191 I.RC. No preliminary inquiry u/s 340 Cr.RC. was conducted before filing the complaint against the petitioners. The Permanent Lok Adalat has also not recorded a finding that the petitioners prima facie committed an offence punishable u/s 193 I.P.C. and it was expedient in the interest of justice to file a complaint against them. In my well considered, view, from the facts alleged and stated in the order, no offence u/s 191 I.RC. can be said to be disclosed even prima facie and the continuance of complaint against the petitioners for the aforesaid offence tentamounts to gross abuse of the process of the court which calls for exercise of inherent powers of this court vested u/s 482 Cr.RC. and the complaint as well as the order dated 11.2.2003 taking cognizance against the petitioners thereon deserve to be quashed. 10. In the result, the petition is allowed and the order dated 11.2.2003 as well as the complaint filed against the petitioners u/s 193 I.P.C. are hereby quashed.Petition allowed. *******