Judgment :- The present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is filed by petitioner Nos.1 and 2 herein who are respondents (accussed) in Crl.Misc.12/2009 on the file of the learned Prl. JMFC, Jamkhandi, District Bagalkot seeking an order quashing the entire proceedings in the said case. 2. I have heard the arguments of Sri.S.B.Hebballi, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri.P.H.Gotkhindi, learned High Court Government Pleader. Perused the order impugned dated 23.12.2009 passed in the said case in the order sheet for that date. Also perused the common judgment dated 21.12.2009 passed in OS Nos.324/2000 and 52/2001 by the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Jamkhandi directing registration of a criminal case against the petitioners herein for the offences under Sections 196 and 208 of IPC. 3. Sri.H.B.Hebballi, learned Counsel for the petitioners-accussed strongly contends that the learned Prl.JMFC, Jamkhandi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Magistrate’ for short) committed serious error in registering the said Criminal Miscellaneous case against these petitioners without there being a complaint in writing as provided under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. and therefore, the order dated 23.12.2009 passed in the said Criminal Misc. Case by the learned Magistrate issuing notice to these petitioners and all further proceedings pursuant thereto deserve to be quashed. He further contends that the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) committed error in directing registration of the criminal case against these petitioners for the offences under Sections 196 and 208 of IPC in asmuch as he failed to comply with the provisions of Section 195 of Cr.P.C., which are mandatory. He further contended that before directing registration of the criminal case against these petitioners in the said common judgment, the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) did not apply his mind and did not state in his order that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an enquiry should be made into for the said offences and therefore, registration of the said criminal miscellaneous case pursuant to the said direction of the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) cannot be sustained in law. 4. 4. Sri.P.H.Gotkhindi, the learned High Court Government Pleader, while conceding that the learned Magistrate was not justified in registering the said criminal miscellaneous case against these petitioners without there being written complaint by the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) or any officer of the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), further contends that the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) directing registration of criminal case against these petitioners for the said offences is not happily worded and therefore, the matter requires to be remanded with a direction to the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) that proper complaint in writing may be filed by him or through any officer of his Court, in compliance with the mandatory provision of Sections 195 and 340 of Cr.P.C. 5. The order of the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) passed in the said common judgment dated 21.12.2009 in sofaras it relates to the direction issued by him for registration of a criminal case against these petitioners for the offences under Sections 196 and 208 of IPC reads as under: KANNADA 6. Further, the impugned order dated 23.12.2009 passed by the learned Magistrate in Crl.Misc.No.12/2009 reads as under: “Register the separate Criminal Misc. case against Deft.No.1 Balappa Gangappa Gouroji, R/o Mudhol and D3 Ganappa S/o Balappa Goroji, R/o Kavatagi has for order in Judgment dated 21.12.2009 in OS No.324/2000 and 52/2001. Hence for orders. Issue notice to Respondents 1 and 3. Call on 20/01/2010. Prl. JMFC, JKD.” 7. On plain reading of the above orders passed respectively by the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and learned Magistrate, it is clear that no complaint in writing duly signed, either by learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) himself or by any officer of his Court duly authorized in that behalf, was sent to the Court of learned Magistrate for registering the criminal case against the present petitioners for the said offences. 8. Section 340(1) Cr.P.C. reads as under: “S.340. 8. Section 340(1) Cr.P.C. reads as under: “S.340. Procedure in cases mentioned in Section 195 – (1) When, upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary,- .(a) record a finding to that effect; .(b) make a complaint thereof in writing; .(c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction; (d) take sufficient security for the appearance of the accused before such Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non-bailable and the Court thinks it necessary so to do, send the accussed in custody to such Magistrate; and .(e) bind over any person to appear and given evidence before such Magistrate. 9. Further, Section 195 of Cr.P.C. reads as under: S.195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence – (1) No Court shall take cognizance – .(a) (i) XXX .(ii) XXX (iii) XXX .(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 been committed, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or .(ii) XXX (iii) XXX Expect on the complaint in writing of that Court by said officer of the Court as that Court may authorize in writing in his behalf or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate. 10. 10. From a combined reading of the above provisions of Sections 195(b) (i) and 340(1) of Cr.P.C., it is clear that when any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made into an offence referred to in Clause (b) of Sub Section (1) of 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary- .(i) record a finding to that effect; .(ii) make a complaint thereof in writing; (iii) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction; 11. In the case of M. S. Ahlawat Vs State of Haryana and another reported in (2000) 1 scc 278 , which is relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, while considering the provisions of Section 195 of Cr.P.C., the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed at para Nos.5 and 6 as under: 5. Chapter XI IPC deals with “false evidence and offences against public justice” and Section 193 occuring therein provides for punishment for giving or fabricating false evidence in a judicial proceeding. Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) provides that where an act amounts to an offence of contempt of the lawful authority of public servants or to an offence against public justice such as giving false evidence under Section 193 IPC etc. or to an offence relating to documents actually used in a Court, private prosecutions are barred absolutely and only the court in relation to which the offence was committed may initiate proceedings. Provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C. are mandatory and no court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of any of the offences mentioned therein unless there is a complaint in writing as required under that section. It is settled law that every incorrect or false statement does not make it incumbent upon the court to order prosecution, but (sic) to exercise judicial discretion to order prosecution only in the larger interest of the administration of justice. 6. It is settled law that every incorrect or false statement does not make it incumbent upon the court to order prosecution, but (sic) to exercise judicial discretion to order prosecution only in the larger interest of the administration of justice. 6. Section 340 Cr.P.C. prescribes the procedure as to how a complaint may be preferred under Section 195 Cr.P.C. While under Section 195 Cr.P.C. it is open to the Court before which the offence was committed to prefer a complaint for the prosecution of the offender, Section 340 Cr.P.C. prescribes the procedure as to how that complaint may be preferred. Provisions under Section 195 Cr.P.C. are mandatory and no court can take cognizance of offences referred to therein (sic). It is in respect of such offences the court has jurisdiction to proceed under Section 340 Cr.P.C. and a complaint outside the provisions of Section 340 Cr.P.C. cannot be filed by any civil, revenue or criminal court under its inherent jurisdiction. 12. Further, in the case of Amanullah Quareshi Vs Union of India reported in AIR 1992 SC 1831 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while considering the provisions of Section 340 Cr.P.C. has observed at para Nos.34 and 35 as under: 34. In this context, reference may be made to Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure under Chapter XXVI under the heading “Provisions as to certain offences affecting the administration of justice.” This section confers an inherent power on a Court to make a complaint in respect of an offence committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court, or as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, if that Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an enquiry should be made into an offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 195 and authorizes such Court to hold preliminary enquiry as it thinks necessary and then make a complaint thereof in writing after recording a finding to that effect as contemplated under sub-section (1) of Section 340. The words ‘in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court” show that the Court which can take action under this is only the Court operating within the definition of Section 195(2) before which or in relation to whose proceeding the offence has been committed. The words ‘in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court” show that the Court which can take action under this is only the Court operating within the definition of Section 195(2) before which or in relation to whose proceeding the offence has been committed. There is a word of caution inbuilt in that provision itself that the action to be taken should be expedient in the interest of justice. Therefore, it is incumbent that the power given by this Section 340 of the Code should be used with utmost care and after due consideration. The scope of Section 340(1) which corresponds to Section 476(1) of the Old Code was examined by this Court in K. Karunakaran v. T. V. Eachara Warrier, (1978) 1 SCC 18 : ( AIR 1978 SC 290 ) and in that decision, it has observed (paras 21 and 26 of AIR): “At an enquiry held by the Court under Section 340(1), Cr.P.C., irrespective of the result of the main case, the only question is whether a prima facie case is made out which, if unrebutted, may have a reasonable likelihood to establish the specified offence and whether it is also expedient in the interest of justice to take such action. ……………………………………………………….. The two pre-conditions are that the materials produced before the High Court make out a prima facie case for a complaint and secondly that it is expedient in the interest of justice to permit the prosecution under Section 193 IPC.” 35. The above provisions of Section 340 of the code of Criminal Procedure are alluded only for the purpose of showing that necessary care and caution are to be taken before initiating a criminal proceeding for perjury against the deponent of contradictory statements in a judicial proceeding. 13. Further, in the case of Amzad Ali Vs. Marfat Ali Biswas and Others reported in 1997 Crl.L.J. 4148 while considering the provisions of Section 340 Cr.P.C., the Calcutta High Court has observed at para Nos.32, 33, 34 and 37 as under: 32. 13. Further, in the case of Amzad Ali Vs. Marfat Ali Biswas and Others reported in 1997 Crl.L.J. 4148 while considering the provisions of Section 340 Cr.P.C., the Calcutta High Court has observed at para Nos.32, 33, 34 and 37 as under: 32. Thus, upon a plain reading of sub-section (1) of Section 340 of the present Code of Criminal Procedure and consideration of the decisions cited above, it is found that the law is well settled on the point that an order for lodging a complaint under Section 340 (1) without expressly recording any finding to the effect that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an enquiry should be made into the offence concerned is vitiated and illegal being in breach of the express provisions of Section 340(1) and is liable to be set aside. The learned Counsel appearing for the opposite parties were also frank enough to concede this legal position. 33. It is thus needless to comment that the impugned order directing making of complaint and the consequent prosecution based on that order were per se illegal and are liable to be quashed on that ground alone. 34. When the impugned order is liable to be set aside only by reason of the fact that it did not comply with the mandatory requirements of recording an express finding to the effect that it is expedient in the interest of justice to make a complaint under Section 340 (1), the question whether or not materials on record were sufficient to give rise to the satisfaction of the Court below regarding the existence of a prima facie case under Section 471 of IPC so as to justify lodging of a complaint does not call for any decision by this Court and accordingly, I need not examine the impugned order so as to find out whether or not it also suffers from the infirmity in this regard. 37. The impugned order which constitutes the very foundation of the impugned prosecution against the petitioner being illegal and bad, it would be sheer abuse of the process of the Court to allow the said order to stand or the prosecution to be proceeded with. It cannot, therefore, be said Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in order to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court. 14. It cannot, therefore, be said Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in order to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court. 14. If the order of the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and that of learned JMFC impugned herein are carefully read in the light of the observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court, High Court of Calcutta made the decisions refered to supra, it could be seen that it is not stated by the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) in his order that ‘it is expedient in the interest of justice’ that an enquiry should be made into the offences punishable under Sections 196 and 208 of IPC (which are referred to in under Section 195(1)(b)(1) of Cr.p.c) alleged to have been committed by the petitioners herein, (the defendants in the said suits). Thus, it is clear that the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) did not record in the impugned order, his finding to the effect that it was expedient in the interest of justice that an enquiry should be made against these petitioners in respect of the said offences. It is further clear from the said order that no complaint in writing was directed to be sent to the learned complaint in writing was directed to be sent to the learned Magistrate for registering criminal case against the petitioners for the said offences. 15. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) was not justified in simply stating in his impugned order that defendant Nos.1 and 3 therein (petitioners herein) appeared to have committed the offences under Sections 196 and 208 of IPC and therefore, the case be registered as provided under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. and notices be issued to both of them, without recording his findings that, in his opinion, it was expedient in the interest of justice an enquiry should be made into the said offences. Further, the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) could have held a preliminary enquiry in that regard before issuing direction for registration of criminal case against the petitioners for the said offences. Besides this, learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) should have made a complaint in writing duly signed either by himself or by any officer of his Court duly authorised in that behalf. Further, the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) could have held a preliminary enquiry in that regard before issuing direction for registration of criminal case against the petitioners for the said offences. Besides this, learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) should have made a complaint in writing duly signed either by himself or by any officer of his Court duly authorised in that behalf. Therefore, it is quite clear that the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) being in total disregard of the mandatory provision of Sections 195(i)(b)(i) and 340 of Cr.P.C., cannot be sustained in law. 16. Further, the learned Magistrate has not stated in his order dated 23.12.2009 passed in the said Criminal Miscellaneous case that he took cognizance of any offence against the petitioners. Besides this, he directed issuance of notice to the petitioners without applying his mind to provisions of Sections 195 and 340 Cr.P.C. As required under Sections 195(1) and 340(1) Cr.P.C., a complaint in writing duly signed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) himself or an officer of his Court duly authorised in that behalf, should have been sent to him by the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) for conducting enquiry into the offences alleged against the petitioners. Thus, the learned JMFC committed serious error in registering the said Crl. Misc. Case against the petitioners herein. 17. For the reasons aforesaid, I hold that the registration of Criminal Miscellaneous No.12/2009 by the learned Magistrate pursuant to the order of the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) in his common judgment dated 21.12.2009 passed in OS Nos.324/2000 and 52/2001 on his file directing registration of the criminal case against these petitioners for the offences under Sections 196 and 208 of IPC and also the said order of the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) cannot be sustained in law. Consequently, all further proceedings in Crl.Misc.No.12/2009 on the file of the learned Magistrate cannot be permitted to be continued. Hence, I pass the following: ORDER The present petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 23.12.2009 passed in Crl.Misc.No.12/2009 by the learned Prl. JMFC, Jamkhandi and all further proceedings pursuant thereto are hereby quashed. Further, the impugned order in the common judgment dated 21.12.2009 passed by the learned Prl. Hence, I pass the following: ORDER The present petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 23.12.2009 passed in Crl.Misc.No.12/2009 by the learned Prl. JMFC, Jamkhandi and all further proceedings pursuant thereto are hereby quashed. Further, the impugned order in the common judgment dated 21.12.2009 passed by the learned Prl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Jamkhandi in OS Nos.324/2000 and 152/2001 insofar as it relates to directing registration of criminal case against the present petitioners who were defendants in the said suit for the offences under Sections 196 and 208 of IPC is also set aside.