ORDER
The Court
1. Heard both sides.
2. By this petition under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C., the two petitioners herein have prayed that the order dated 31-8-2000 of the learned Magistrate made in Cr. Misc. No. 65 of 2000 on his fde directing issuance of process, may be quashed. A few material facts leading to this petition may be stated as under:
A private complaint under Section 200 of the Or. P.C., alleging commission of offences under Sections 143, 147, 323, 448, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of the IPC was lodged before the learned Magistrate by one Bindu Madhav against petitioner 1-Ramachandra Gudi herein and four others. That complaint was taken on the file of the learned Magistrate viz., Judicial Magistrate First Class, Haveri in P.C.R. No. 35 of 1997. Petitioner 2 was the complainant’s witness therein. The learned Magistrate after taking cognizance of the said offences proceeded to record the sworn statement of petitioner 2 and other witnesses of the complainant. Thereafter, the process against petitioner 1 and other accused in the said P.C.R. No. 35 of 1997 was stated to have been issued. Aggrieved by the initiation of the said criminal proceeding in the said P.C.R. No. 35 of 1997, the accused in P.C.R. No. 35 of 1997 had filed a petition under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. before this Court in Cri. P. No. 2000 of 1999 seeking quashment of the said criminal proceeding against them. This Court, on consideration of the material obtainable on record in that proceeding, passed its order dated 6th June, 2000 allowing the said petition and quashing the said criminal proceedings in P.C.R. No. 35 of 1997 against the accused therein.
3. After the said order dated 6th June, 2000 was passed by this Court disposing of the said Cri. P. No. 2000 of 1999, respondent herein who is a practising Advocate of Haveri Bar Association made his so-called complaint under Section 340 read with Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Cr. P.C. before the learned Magistrate in the said Cr. Misc. No. 65 of 2000 against petitioner 1 herein, alleging commission of the offence under Section 193 of the IPC and requesting that they may be punished for the said offence. The said complaint was made on the ground that the petitioner 1 had given a false statement in the said P.C.R. No. 35 of 1997.
4. Learned Counsel for petitioners rightly argued that once the criminal proceeding in the said P.C.R. No. 35 of 1997 against respondent, who is the complainant in the said Cr. Misc. No. 65 of 2000 and others had been quashed as illegal by this Court by its order dated 6th June, 2000 made in Cri. P. No. 2000 of 1999, then for all legal purposes the proceeding in P.C.R. No. 35 of 1997 stands wiped out in the eye of law. Therefore, respondent cannot indulge in the luxury of relying on that illegal proceeding invoking the provision of Section 340 read with Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Cr.P.C.
5. Learned Counsel representing respondent proposing to draw support from the observation of Supreme Court in K.T.M.S. Mohd. and Anr. v. Union of India, sought to support the impugned order of the Court below. The observation of Supreme Court made in K.T.M.S. Mohd.’s case, supra, is to the effect that Section 340 of the Cr. P.C. 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 authorises 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”.
6. There cannot be any dispute about the above proposition of law. But evidently, the same is inapplicable to the case in hand inasmuch as the said criminal proceeding in the said P.C.R. No. 35 of 1997 had been quashed by this Court as illegal proceeding. As a result, that proceeding does not have any existence in the eye of law. In that view of the matter, the so-called complaint of respondent made before the learned Magistrate in Cr. Misc. No. 65 of 2000 was wholly a vexatious complaint which was highly unwarranted on his part in the circumstances of the case.
7. Hence, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 31-8-2000 of the learned Magistrate is set aside and the further proceeding in Cr. Misc. No. 65 of 2000 on his file is quashed as illegal and void proceeding.