ORDER Heard Sri H.M. Thimmarayappa, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri A.V. Ramakrishna, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and perused the material on record. 2. Petitioners have sought for quashing the proceedings in C.C. No. 23090 of 2006, pending on the file of learned X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore. 3. Petitioners are the Police Officers, who arrested Murugesh Babu s/o. Smt. Shantamma. According to Shantamma, her son Murugesh Babu was arrested during the midnight intervening between 23-6-2006 and 24-6-2006. On the next day, she went to Malur Police Station and enquired with regard to the whereabouts of her son. The police informed that her son was not arrested. On 27-6-2006, on enquiry, she came to know that her son is in custody in Indiranagar Police Station, Bangalore and hence, she filed Writ Petition No. 62 of 2006 (HC), dated 23-8-2006 (Smt. Shanthamma v Sub-Inspector of Police, Malur Police Station, Kolar1) praying for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus. During the pendency of the matter before the Division Bench of this Court, the detenue was produced on 29-6-2006 by the 1st petitioner herein. The detenue made the statement before the Court that six police officials of Indiranagar Police Station took him to the custody on the late night of 23-6-2006 but did not produce before the Magistrate within 24 hours of this arrest. In view of the said statement, the Division Bench of this Court directed the respondents to file their affidavits. In compliance with the said direction, the affidavits were filed by the petitioners herein. They also produced Station House Diary and other documents. Since there were discrepancies in the Station House Diary and other documents with regard to detention and the affidavits filed, the Division Bench directed the Registrar (Vigilance), High Court of Karnataka, to hold an enquiry regarding the detention with reference to the Station House Diary and Case Diary. The Registrar (Vigilance) held enquiry and filed his report by concluding as under: 1. Murugesh Babu was taken to custody from his house at Malur on the intervening midnight of 24-6-2006 and 25-6-2006 by Sri Zahoor Ali Baig, PSI, Mallegowda and Bala Naik, Head Constables of Indiranagar Police Station; 2. Murugesh Babu was detained in custody by Indiranagar Police from intervening night of 24-6-2006 till he was produced before the Hon'ble High Court. 3. Murugesh Babu was taken to custody from his house at Malur on the intervening midnight of 24-6-2006 and 25-6-2006 by Sri Zahoor Ali Baig, PSI, Mallegowda and Bala Naik, Head Constables of Indiranagar Police Station; 2. Murugesh Babu was detained in custody by Indiranagar Police from intervening night of 24-6-2006 till he was produced before the Hon'ble High Court. 3. Murugesh Babu was not produced before any Magistrate. 4. The contention of the Police personnel that Murugesh Babu was apprehended and was taken to custody an 28-6-2006 by Head Constables near Sai Engineering Works in the presence of Sri P. Venkatesan, Proprietor, is false; 5. Sri Murugesh Babu alias Babu, the detenue was not tortured in the Police Station when he was in custody. Thereafter, the Division Bench of this Court disposed of the Writ Petition No. 62 of 2006 an 23-8-2006 by directing the Registrar General to file appropriate criminal complaint before the Competent Court of law against the petitioners. In accordance with the directions of this Court, the Registrar General of High Court of Karnataka has lodged the complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate Court alleging offences punishable under Sections 193,471 and 342 of the IPC and the same is numbered as PCR No. 111 of 2006. Now the matter is renumbered as C.C. No. 23090 of 2006. This petition is filed far quashing the proceedings in C.C. No. 23090 of 2006, pending an the file of learned X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayohall, Bangolare. 4. Sri Thimmarayappa, learned Counsel appearing far the petitioners contended that (a) Station House Diary and Case Diary were allegedly tampered or fabricated outside the Court premises and that therefore, no. offence has taken place in the High Court of Karnataka. Consequently, the Registrar General of High Court of Karnataka cannot lodge the complaint; (b) High Court is not Competent Court to lodge the complaint and the complaint aught to have been filed by the subordinate Court; (c) the preliminary enquiry as contemplated under Section 340 of the Cr. P.C. is not held by Registrar (Vigilance), but a detailed enquiry is made by him, consequently the same will prejudice the mind of the Trial Judge. The said submissions are vehemently opposed by Sri A.V. Ramakrishna, learned Government Pleader appearing far the respondents. 5. P.C. is not held by Registrar (Vigilance), but a detailed enquiry is made by him, consequently the same will prejudice the mind of the Trial Judge. The said submissions are vehemently opposed by Sri A.V. Ramakrishna, learned Government Pleader appearing far the respondents. 5. Admittedly, the affidavits were filed by the petitioners herein before the Division Bench of this Court mentioning therein that Murugesh Babu was arrested by the police an 28-6-2006 and not in the midnight of 23-6-2006 as contended by the petitioner in the writ petition. An enquiry was held in that regard and in the said enquiry, it is revealed that the victim was apprehended from his house during the midnight intervening between 23-6-2006 and 24-6-2006. Thus, the affidavits of the petitioners filed before the Division Bench of this Court prima facie disclose false statements. During the course of such proceedings, it is also revealed that the State House Diary, Case Diary and other registers were manipulated by the police in order to suit the false affidavits. All these things were done by the petitioners only with a view to screen themselves from the crime. As the petitioners have given false evidence in the form of affidavits in the judicial proceedings before this Court, this Court has got jurisdiction to lodge the complaint. Accordingly, the Registrar General has lodged the complaint for and on behalf of the High Court of Karnataka before the jurisdictional Magistrate's Court. 6. Section 195 of the Cr. P.C. makes it clear that the complaint in writing can be filed by the Court before whom the offences mentioned in Section 195 of the Cr. P.C. are committed or the complaint can be lodged by some other Court to which that Court is subordinate. The very wordings used in Section 195 of the Cr. P.C. would clarify that the Court before which the offences have taken place is entitled to lodge the complaint. It need not necessarily direct the subordinate Court to lodge the complaint. Section 195(3) of the Cr. P.C. makes it clear that the Court means Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court and includes Tribunal. There cannot be any dispute that the High Court deals with civil matters, revenue matters and criminal matters. Therefore, there is no bar for the High Court to lodge the complaint. In addition to the same, the provisions of Section 340(3) of the Cr. P.C. makes it clear that the Court means Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court and includes Tribunal. There cannot be any dispute that the High Court deals with civil matters, revenue matters and criminal matters. Therefore, there is no bar for the High Court to lodge the complaint. In addition to the same, the provisions of Section 340(3) of the Cr. P.C. disclose that where the Court making the complaint is a High Court, the complaint shall be signed by such officer of the Court as the Court may appoint. In this matter, admittedly the Division Bench has appointed the Registrar General to lodge the complaint. Accordingly, the Registrar General has lodged the complaint after signing the same. 7. This Court also does not agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the Registrar (Vigilance) has held the enquiry in detail and thus, it is not a preliminary enquiry. For the purpose of finding out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made against the petitioners, the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 62 of 2006 directed the Registrar (Vigilance) to hold enquiry. Accordingly, the enquiry was held. During the course of such enquiry, it is but natural for the Registrar to record some evidence to find out as to whether the allegations are prima facie true or not. On enquiry, the Registrar (Vigilance) has filed his report. It cannot be stated that it is a detailed report. But it is a report of a preliminary enquiry as contemplated under Section 340 of the Cr. P.C. I may hasten to add here itself that the Trial Court shall not be influenced by any of the observations made in the said report of the Registrar (Vigilance) while deciding the criminal case. In view of the above, all the contentions raised by the petitioners fail. Accordingly, this Court does not find any reason to quash the proceedings of the Court below. Criminal petition is accordingly dismissed.