JUDGMENT /ORDER : The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C'), has been filed, by the petitioner/accused, seeking quashment of proceedings against him in FIR No.203 of 2021 on the file of Beluguppa Police Station, Anantapur District, which was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 193, 196, 199 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'I.P.C.'). 2. Respondent No.2 herein filed a private complaint against the petitioner on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kalyandurg, for the alleged offence, which was referred to the Police for enquiry and report and the same was numbered as FIR No.203 of 2021 on the file of Beluguppa Police Station for the offence under the abovementioned Sections of Law. 3. The allegations mentioned in the complaint, in brief, are as follows : (a) The land in Sy.No.327-1A is to an extent of Ac.0.78 cents of Beluguppa Village polam limits out of which, respondent No.2, having succeeded from his ancestors an extent of Ac.0.18 cents, has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. Whereas, petitioner/accused succeeded an extent of Ac.0.28 cents in the said survey number from his ancestors and constructed 19 rooms and house therein and gave 19 rooms for rent to various persons by maintaining as a commercial complex. (b) That being so, the petitioner with an intention to grab the property of respondent No.2, filed a suit in OS No.93 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Kalyandurg against him and his family members, by giving a false affidavit contending that the schedule property is an agricultural land, he has been cultivating the land and obtained injunction against respondent No.2. (c) On the complaint made by respondent No.2 before the Tahsildar, Beluguppa, an enquiry was conducted and the statement of the petitioner/accused was recorded, wherein he admitted that the schedule land in Sy.No.327-1A is covered by a shopping complex and a house, but he falsely stated in his affidavit in IA No.515 of 2017 in OS No.93 of 2017 that the said property is an agricultural land. As the Police refused to take action against the petitioner/accused, the present private complaint has been filed by respondent No.2. (d) Aggrieved by the registration of the said case, the petitioner/accused filed the present petition seeking quashment of the proceedings against him. 4. As the Police refused to take action against the petitioner/accused, the present private complaint has been filed by respondent No.2. (d) Aggrieved by the registration of the said case, the petitioner/accused filed the present petition seeking quashment of the proceedings against him. 4. Heard Sri T. Lakshmi Narayana, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Ms. D. Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent No.1 and Sri K. Ramakoteswara Rao, learned Counsel for respondent No.2. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner/accused would submit that the present complaint is not maintainable unless the suit in OS No.93 of 2017 is concluded with a finding that there is a false evidence. Learned Counsel would submit that the petitioner filed a petition before the Civil Court for withdrawal of the suit filed for permanent injunction with a view to file a suit for declaration and the said petition was dismissed. Then the petitioner preferred civil revision petition and stay has been granted therein. In the meanwhile, the present complaint has been filed against the petitioner. Learned Counsel would further submit that the pattadar passbook which was issued in the name of the petitioner was not challenged by respondent No.2 before the Revenue Divisional Officer. It is submitted that the writ petition filed by the respondent No.2 was dismissed against which a writ appeal is pending and after dismissal of the writ petition, he filed the present private complaint with false and untenable allegations. Learned Counsel would finally submit that there are no tenable grounds to continue the proceedings against the petitioner and hence, prayed to quash the same. In support of his contentions, learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Chandrapal Singh and others v. Maharaj Singh and others, MANU/SC/0228/1982 and Sh. Narendra Kumar Srivastava v. The State of Bihar and others, Crl. A No.211 of 2019, dated 04.02.2019 reported in 2019 (2) ALD (Crl.) 285 (SC). 6. Refuting the same, learned Counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that the observation of the Tahsildar is that he has not issued any pattadar passbook and after filing of the suit only, respondent No.2 has got knowledge about the illegal acts of the petitioner. Learned Counsel would submit that, in view of the mischievous acts committed by the petitioner, respondent No.2 lodged the present criminal case. Learned Counsel would submit that, in view of the mischievous acts committed by the petitioner, respondent No.2 lodged the present criminal case. There are no tenable grounds to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 7. It is the contention of respondent No.2 that the petitioner filed OS No.93 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Kalyandurg contending that he is having agricultural land of an extent of Ac.0.86 cents in Sy.No.327-1A of Beluguppa Village and Mandal and the same is against the facts mentioned in the report of the Advocate Commissioner in IA No.793 of 2018 in OS No.93 of 2017, wherein it was clearly stated that the petitioner constructed shops in the schedule property. The present complaint has been filed mainly on the ground that the petitioner filed false affidavit in IA No.515/2017 in OS No.93 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Kalyandurg and obtained interim injunction orders. 8. The present complaint has been filed mainly on the ground that the petitioner filed false affidavit in IA No.515/2017 in OS No.93 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Kalyandurg and obtained interim injunction orders. 8. At this stage, it is apposite to extract Section 195 Cr.P.C., which reads as under "Section 195(1) in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.-(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 Section 476, of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a 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), except on the complaint in writing of that Court, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate." 9. Admittedly, in the present case, without there being a complaint by the authority concerned, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 193, 196 and 199 of IPC and forwarded the same to the Police, which is in utter violation of Section 195(1)(b)(i) of Cr.P.C. Further, the suit in OS No.93 of 2017 is pending before the Trial Court. As such, this Court is of the view that the present complaint is not maintainable unless the suit in OS No.93 of 2017 is concluded with a finding that there is a false evidence. The procedure contemplated under Section 195 Cr.P.C has not been followed in the present case. As such, this Court is of the view that the present complaint is not maintainable unless the suit in OS No.93 of 2017 is concluded with a finding that there is a false evidence. The procedure contemplated under Section 195 Cr.P.C has not been followed in the present case. In such circumstances, the proceedings against the petitioner, which were initiated in violation of Section 195 Cr.P.C., are liable to be quashed. However, considering the grievance of respondent No.2 that the petitioner filed a false affidavit and obtained injunction order in IA No.515 of 2019 in OS No.93 of 2017, the Trial Court shall give a finding in the main judgment on the said aspect and consequently complaint can be filed by following due process of law. 10. Resultantly, the criminal petition is allowed with the above observations, quashing the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in FIR No.203 of 2021 on the file of Beluguppa Police Station, Anantapur District, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 193, 196, 199 and 420 IPC. 11. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.