( 1 ) THE petitioner/a-1 in C. C. No. 91/2005 on the file of II Metropolitan Magistrate, visakhapatnam filed the present Criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code of criminal Procedure, 1973, hereinafter in short referred to as "code", praying for quashing of the proceedings on the ground that for certain offences the bar under Section 195 of the code would be attracted and for certain other offences the ingredients are not satisfied and at any rate the allegations made may be in relation to the other accused and not in relation to the petitioner/a-1. ( 2 ) THE 1st respondent/complainant filed a private complainant under Section 200 of the code as against the four accused stating that the accused committed offences under sections 193, 196, 34, 109, 120-B, 218, 357 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860) hereinafter in short referred to as "ipc". The petitioner/a-1 at present is a Junior civil Judge and at the relevant point of time a practising Advocate. It is no doubt stated that A-2 at the instance of A-1 had proceeded with some prosecution and A-3 and A-4 also had in a way influenced A-2 and assisted a-1 in such illegal acts. The case was taken on file by the learned Magistrate against A-1 to A-4 under Sections 500, 357, 218, 196, 193, 109, 120-B r/w. Section 34 IPC. ( 3 ) CONTENTIONS of Sri C. Padmanabha reddy: Sri Padmanabha Reddy, the learned senior Counsel representing the petitioner would maintain that the allegations made in the complaint in relation to the offences under sections 34,109 and 120-B IPC are more or less general in nature and there are no specific allegations and the allegations are vague. The learned Counsel also would maintain that as far as the offences under sections 193 and 196 IPC are concerned, the bar imposed by Section 195 of the Code would come into play and hence the very taking of cognizance of such offences by the learned Magistrate cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel also had taken this Court through the averments made in the complaint and would maintain that in the light of the facts and circumstances and in the light of the averments made, so far as the petitioner/a-1 is concerned, the ingredients of sections 218 and 357 IPC also are not satisfied. The learned Counsel also had taken this Court through the averments made in the complaint and would maintain that in the light of the facts and circumstances and in the light of the averments made, so far as the petitioner/a-1 is concerned, the ingredients of sections 218 and 357 IPC also are not satisfied. The learned Senior Counsel also would maintain that the allegations relating to the offence of defamation under section 500 IPC were made as against the petitioner/a-1 on the ground that in a prior proceeding a false case had been thought of which ended in acquittal at the appellate stage and the same was confirmed at the revisional stage. The learned Counsel would maintain that as far as the publication made by Andhra Jyothi Newspaper is concerned, the allegation is in relation to A-2 and no doubt it is stated that this was done at the instance of A-1. Viewed from any angle, on the ground that some benefit of doubt was given in a criminal proceedings it cannot be said that such allegation would prima facie constitute an offence of defamation and the learned Senior Counsel would contend that none of the ingredients specified under section 499 and 500 IPC are attracted. In any view of the matter, it is just abuse of process of Court and process of Law as well and hence the proceedings are liable to be quashed. ( 4 ) CONTENTIONS of Sri H. S. Dora: sri Dora, the learned Counsel representing the 1st respondent/complainant would maintain that this is a case where the complainant who in fact held high offices, both political and otherwise, had been unnecessarily implicated in a false case and this was done by A-2 at the instance of A-1 only. The learned Counsel also would maintain that specific allegations had been made in relation to he status of the complainant and the relationship of the complainant with the petitioner/a-1 and despite the same the false case had been foisted against the complainant which ended in acquittal at the appellate stage. The learned Counsel also would maintain that specific allegations had been made in relation to he status of the complainant and the relationship of the complainant with the petitioner/a-1 and despite the same the false case had been foisted against the complainant which ended in acquittal at the appellate stage. The counsel also in all seriousness would point out that the petitioner in fact preferred the criminal Revision case before this Court against the acquittal of the complainant and had been unsuccessful and all these factors would go to show that intentional and deliberate attempt was made only to defame the complainant and the other offences also are attracted inasmuch as the ingredients are prima facie satisfied. The learned Counsel also pointed out that as far as the question of want of sanction under Section 197 of the code is concerned, specific averments were made in this regard in the complaint and at any rate since the petitioner was only a practicing Advocate at the relevant point of time this question may not arise at all as far as the petitioner is concerned. The learned counsel also placed reliance on certain decisions. ( 5 ) CONTENTIONS of the learned Public prosecutor: The learned Public Prosecutor had taken this Court through the averments made in the complaint and also would maintain that it may be that for certain offences the bar under Section 195 of the Code may come into play, but as far as certain other offences are concerned, in the light of the specific averments made in the complaint inasmuch as cognizance had been taken by the learned Magistrate, and these being factual aspects, cannot be gone into at this stage and hence it would be just and appropriate to give liberty to the petitioner a-1 to raise all these defences at the appropriate stage and at any rate this is not a fit case to be interfered with under section 482 of the Code. ( 6 ) HEARD the Counsel. ( 7 ) AS already referred to supra, the 1st respondent/complainant filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code stating that A-1 to A-4 committed the offences under Sections 193, 196, 34, 109, 120-B, 218, 357 and 500 IPC and the learned magistrate in fact had taken the case on file. ( 6 ) HEARD the Counsel. ( 7 ) AS already referred to supra, the 1st respondent/complainant filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code stating that A-1 to A-4 committed the offences under Sections 193, 196, 34, 109, 120-B, 218, 357 and 500 IPC and the learned magistrate in fact had taken the case on file. It is no doubt true that at para 12 of the complaint, averments were made that A-1 is presently a Magistrate, but at the time of committing the offences he was not a Judicial officer. Specific allegations against A-2 were made to the effect that a false newspaper publication in Andhra Jyothi on 29-5-1994 was given and this was made by A-2. No doubt the allegation is that the same was at the instance of A-1. Before further appreciating the rival contentions and the questions raised in the present Criminal petition, it may be appropriate to have a look at the allegations made in the complaint at paras 8 to 10 which read as hereunder:"it is respectfully submitted that the said a-2 has charge sheeted the complainant under Sections 420,500,506 (1) of IPC but the Hon'ble Court has discarded the section 4201 PC but ha s framed charges under Sections 500 and 501 against the complainant on the wrong complaint made by the accused No. 1. The Hon'ble ii Metropolitan Magistrate Court at visakhapatnam on 30-1-1998 while pronouncing the judgment has acquitted the accused for offence under section 501 (1) of IPC but sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- for offence under Section 500 IPC and immediately the complainant filed an appeal in crl. Appeal No. 164 and the Hon'ble metropolitan Magistrate and Sessions judge i. e. , 1st Additional District Judge, visakhapatnam has acquitted the complainant completely on 7-1-2000 and allowed the appeal setting aside the conviction and sentence in C. C. 497/94 passed by the Hon'ble Court of ii Metropolitan Magistrate, visakhapatnam on 30-10-1998. This accused No. 1 preferred on third party revision to the Hon'ble High Court which was dismissed on 24-8-2004. This accused No. 1 preferred on third party revision to the Hon'ble High Court which was dismissed on 24-8-2004. Hence it is legally confirmed that the complaint made by the accused No. 1 is malicious prosecution and the accused No2 has supported the wrong complaint and went to the extent of insulting personally also and A-3 and A-4 were also all along influencing A-2 to take such wrongful act to support A-1 and hence all of them have together committed offence of defamation and other offences as alleged in the complaint against the accused. It is respectfully submitted that A-1 and a-4 intentionally given false evidence in c. C. 497/1994 but failed to prove the case against the complainant as it is a false complaint and due to the false complaint and malicious prosecution and also confining in the cell and using filthy language and also giving in the paper publication with regard to the arrest of the complainant and the complainant had suffered mentally and physically for 8 long years and lost so many political upliftments and lost the seat for Mayor of the Visakhapatnam city and also the post or organizing secretary of APCC and also Member of prestigious RIOT HIT Committee and hence the entire political career of the complainant was totally collapsed. The complainant was looked down in the political circles and in social circles also in the vicinity of the residential locality due to wrong complaint given by the a-1 and the supports made by A-2 to A-4: it is respectfully submitted that the hon'ble Court of appeal that is MSJ i. e. I Additional District Judge at visakhapatnam was made to suffer at hands of the accused because of the close association with the then S. I. of police P. Ravi Varma A-2 and it is clear case of foisted case against the complainant and it was also observed that A-2 abetted in filing the complaint against the complainant even though there is no material and the copy of the appellate Court Judgment is herewith filed for perusal. A-2 has supported A-1 by fabricating the evidence with malicious intention to get punishment on the complainant with false case. A-2 has supported A-1 by fabricating the evidence with malicious intention to get punishment on the complainant with false case. The evidence of the accused clearly showed that A-1 given a false complaint the certified copy of deposition of A-1 in c. C. 497/1994 on the file of II metropolitan Magistrate at visakhapatnam and the copy of the complaint made to police by A-1 and the copy of the Judgment in the case c. C. 497/1994 which are filed herewith for perusal of the Hon'ble Court. The above evidence establishes the complainant was maliciously prosecuted and hence this complaint. "no doubt several averments were made in the complaint relating to the status of the complainant and the offices he held and the suffering which he had faced. Certain averments also were made in detail about the post-incident events. The complaint made to the National Human Rights Commission as against A-2 also had been averred in detail. The specific allegation is that A-2 laid charge-sheet with a view to help A-1 in c. C. No. 497/94. It is not in controversy that the learned Magistrate imposed fine, but however the Criminal Appeal preferred by the 1st respondent/complainant herein against the said Judgment was allowed and it is stated that the Criminal Revision Case preferred by the third party/a-1/petitioner herein as against the reversing judgment resulted in dismissal. Specific averment also was made that the complainant was forced to resign the most prestigious post of Organising secretary of A. P. C. C. These are more or less general allegations in nature and most probably the status of the complainant had been specifically referred to in the complaint to show that the allegations made are defamatory and the ingredients of Sec. 500 ipc are prima facie attracted. ( 8 ) SECTION 218 IPC deals with Public servant framing incorrect record or writing with intent to save person from punishment or property from forfeiture. On a prima facie reading of the provision and also the averments made in the complaint, this Court is satisfied that the said provision is not applicable at least so far as it relates to the petitioner/a-1 who was just a practicing advocate at the relevant point of time. On a prima facie reading of the provision and also the averments made in the complaint, this Court is satisfied that the said provision is not applicable at least so far as it relates to the petitioner/a-1 who was just a practicing advocate at the relevant point of time. Section 357 IPC deals with Assault or criminal force in attempt wrongfully to confine a person and on a reading of the said provision and also the averments made in the complaint in relation thereto, the specific allegation is that it is A-2 who had unlawfully detained the 1st respondent/complainant. No doubt it may be at the instance of A-1. The allegations made against petitioner/a-1 in relation to the offence under Section 357 IPC also would not satisfy the ingredients of the said provision and hence even on a prima facie reading of the averments in the complaint, this Court is of the considered opinion that the said provision also cannot be made applicable so far as the petitioner/a-1 is concerned. No doubt certain general averments were made relating to abetment, conspiracy and common intention, but it is needless to say that these are based on general allegations with a view to fasten the criminal liability as against all Accused 1 to 4. ( 9 ) BE that as it may, the serious question which may have to be decided is in relation to section 500 IPC, the defamatory allegation said to have been made in the course of a prior judicial proceeding. The copies of the judgments are being relied upon for this purpose. No doubt, yet another allegation had been made relating to the Press Note said to have given to Andhra Jyothi newspaper on 29-5-1994 and the allegation is that A-2 briefed the press. Hence the question-is when a person was prosecuted and in fact convicted by imposition of fine in the Court of first instance which no doubt was reversed in the Appeal acquitting the 1st respondent/complainant herein and the defacto complainant was successful in the criminal Revision Case preferred by the petitioner/a-1 herein, a third party to the said judicial proceedings, whether the allegations said to have been made in the course of such judicial proceedings be taken as defamatory so as to attract the provisions of Section 500 ipc. On a careful scrutiny of the averments made in the complaint, this Court is satisfied that the Investigating agency being satisfied with the report given had thought it fit to initiate prosecution in accordance with the provisions of the Code and on appreciation of evidence the first Court came to definite conclusion that it is a fit case at least to impose fine and may be benefit of doubt would have been given to the complainant at the appellate stage and the same being confirmed even in the Criminal Revision Case filed by the third party/petitioner/a-1. By this itself, it cannot be said that the allegations made in such a report in pursuance of which the Investigating agency thought it fit to launch prosecution and merely because some acquittal had been recorded at the appellate stage, that cannot be taken as advantage to invoke the provisions of Section 500 IPC. As already referred to supra, as far as the Press note in the Andhra Jyothi Newspaper is concerned, the same was briefed by A-2 only. Except the allegations said to have been made in the prior judicial proceedings, no other allegations as such been made as against the petitioner/a-1. ( 10 ) THE next question is in relation to sections 193 and 196 IPC and the said provisions read as hereunder:section 193 IPC: Punishment for false evidence: whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceedings, or fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceedings, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; and whoever intentionally gives or fabricates false evidence in any other case, shall be punished with imprisonment or either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation 1: A trial before a court-martial is judicial proceeding. Explanation 2: An investigation directed by law preliminary to a proceeding before a Court of Justice, is a stage of a judicial proceeding, though that investigation may not take place before a Court of Justice. Explanation 1: A trial before a court-martial is judicial proceeding. Explanation 2: An investigation directed by law preliminary to a proceeding before a Court of Justice, is a stage of a judicial proceeding, though that investigation may not take place before a Court of Justice. Section 196 IPC: Using evidence known to be false: whoever corruptly uses or attempts to use as true or genuine evidence or any evidence which he knows to be false or fabricated, shall be punished in thesame manner as if he gave or fabricated false evidence. Section 195 of the Code reads as hereunder: prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence: (1) No Court shall take cognizance,- (a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal code (45 of 1860), or (ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence or (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate; (b) (i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely, Sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any court, or (ii) of any offence described in section 463 or punishable under section 471, Section 475 or 476 of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, or (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (ii ). (2) Where a complaint has been made by a public servant under Clause (a)of sub-section (1) any authority to which he is administratively subordinate may order the withdrawal of the complaint and send a copy of such order to the Court; and upon its receipt by the Court, no further proceedings shall be taken on the complaint: provided that no such withdrawal shall be ordered if the trial in the Court of first instance has been concluded. (3) 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. (4) For the purposes of Clause (b) of sub-section (1), a Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the appealable decrees or sentences of such former Court, or in the case of civil Court from whose decrees no appeal ordinarily lies, to the principal Court having ordinary original civil jurisdiction within whose local jurisdiction such civil Court is situate: provided that- (a) Where appeals lie to more than one Court, the Appellate Court of inferior jurisdiction shall be the court to which such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate; (b) where appeals lie to a civil and also to a Revenue Court, such court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Civil or revenue Court according to the nature of the case or proceeding in connection with which the offence is alleged to have been committed. ( 11 ) THERE cannot be any controversy that in the light of the bar imposed by Section 195 of the Code, the learned Magistrate cannot take cognizance of offences like Section 193 and 196 IPC straightway unless the procedure specified under Section 195 of the Code is followed. There cannot be any two opinions in relation thereto. No doubt, the learned counsel representing the 1st respondent/complainant had placed strong reliance on state of Maharashtra v. Ishwar Piraji Kalpatri and K. M. Mathew v. K. A. Abraham and would maintain that inasmuch as these are all factual aspects which may have to be gone into at the appropriate stage, on the ground of mere mala fides or otherwise the proceedings cannot be quashed at this stage exercising powers under Section 482 of the code. There cannot be any controversy even in relation to the propositions or the principles of Law which had been laid down in the aforesaid decisions. There cannot be any controversy even in relation to the propositions or the principles of Law which had been laid down in the aforesaid decisions. But however, on appreciation of the over-all facts and circumstances and also in the light of the averments made in the complaint taken on their face value, this Court is thoroughly satisfied that the present private complaint is thought of as against the petitioner/a-1 just as a consequence of the prior proceedings which ultimately resulted in acquittal. That by itself cannot be a ground to prosecute the petitioner/a-1 specifying several of the offences with which the petitioner/a-1 is totally unconcerned with as already observed supra. The excesses, even if any made by the investigating agency, by themselves may not be a ground. However, this Court is not inclined to express any opinion inasmuch in relation thereto this Court is concerned with the Criminal Petition filed by the petitioner/a-1 alone. It is suffice to state that it would not be just and proper to further permit the 1st respondent/complainant to proceed with the proceedings in C. C. No. 91/2005 on the file of ii Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam so far as the petitioner/a-1 is concerned. ( 12 ) ACCORDINGLY the proceedings in c. C. No. 91/2005, on the file of II Metropolitan magistrate, Visakhaptanam, so far as they relate to the petitioner/a-1 is concerned, are hereby quashed and the Criminal Petition is allowed.