JUDGMENT 1. - The present misc. petition has been on behalf of the petitioner challenging the order dated 29.10.2002 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begun in Criminal Case No.312/1998 directing initiation of the proceedings against the petitioner under Section 193 IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in this case, the petitioner stood as defence witness for the accused persons namely Ladulal, Rameshwarlal and others who were facing trial for the offences under Sections 457, 380 and 411 IPC. The learned trial Judge acquitted the aforesaid accused persons on the conclusion of the trial but at the same time directed initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner for giving false evidence. Initially, the petitioner was given a notice and thereafter without the procedure prescribed under Sections 195(1)(b) and 340 Cr.P.C. being followed, the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioner and summoned him as an accused in the case. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the provisions of Sections 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. are mandatory and without there being any complaint of the court concerned, no cognizance could have been taken against the petitioner. Thus, he prays that the order impugned deserves to be quashed. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the misc. petition but not in a position to contest the fact that no complaint was filed in this case as warranted under Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. 5. For a proper appreciation of the arguments advanced at the bar, the provisions of Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. needs to be considered, which read as follows:- "195. 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 - (b)(i) for 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, 2. 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 [except on the complaint in writing of that Court or by such officer of the Court as that Court may authorise in writing in this behalf, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate]." 6. Apparently, the impact of the said provision is to the effect that whenever the prosecution of a person is to be conducted for the offence under Section 193 IPC in relation to any proceedings in any court, then, such proceedings can only be initiated on the basis of a complaint of the court concerned as per the procedure laid down under Section 340 Cr.P.C. Admittedly, in this case, no such complaint has been filed. 7. Resultantly, this Court is of the opinion that initiation of the proceedings against the petitioner under Section 193 IPC being in total violation of the mandatory provisions of Sections 195(1)(B) and 340 Cr.P.C. are absolutely illegal and amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. 8. Consequently, this misc. petition succeeds. The order dated 29.10.2002 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begun in Criminal Case No.312/1998 directing initiation of the proceedings against the petitioner under Section 193 IPC and all other subsequent proceedings sought to be taken against the petitioner are hereby quashed and set aside.Petition allowed. *******