AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Newsam, J.—This is an application asking the Court to revise an order of the Fourth Presidency Magistrate made in the following
circumstances.
In a suit on a pronote for Rs. 200, plaintiff applied for attachment befcre judgment of the defendant''s movable property. The Court ordered
notice to defendant. The notice was returned with an endorsement that it had been personally served on defendant. As defendant did not appear
attachment was ordered. As soon as the bailiff went to effect attachment, the defendant paid up.
The defendant complains that his signature on the reverse of the notice was forged by the clerk of plaintiff''s Advocate and the forged document
was used to stifle his objections to attachment before judgment.
The defendant, after about a month''s delay, moved the Court to prosecute the clerk of plaintiff''s vakil and also filed a private complaint against
him and also applied u/s 95, Civil Procedure Code, for compensation against plaintiff for attachment before judgment without reasonable and
probable cause.
The Court declined to prosecute the plaintiff''s vakil''s clerk on 11th January, 1937, and dismissed the application for compensation u/s 95, Civil
Procedure Code, on 17th Decernber, 1936. But the defendant''s private complaint against the plaintiff''s vakil''s clerk has been taken cognisance
of. This petitioner requests that the order of the Fourth Presidency Magistrate deciding to go on with this private case should be revised.
The principle underlying Section 195, Criminal Procedure Code, is plainly this. Where an act amounts to the offence of contempt of the lawful
authority of public servants (Sections 172-188, Indian Penal Code), or to an offence against public justice such as giving false evidence (Section
193, et seq, Indian Penal Code) or to an offence relating to documents actually used in a Court (Section 471, etc.) private prosecutions are barred
absolutely, and only the Court in relation to which the offence was committed may initiate proceedings. This salutary rule of law is founded on
common sense. The dignity and prestige of Courts of law must be upheld by their Presiding Officers, and it would never do to leave it to parties
aggrieved to achieve in one prosecution gratification of personal revenge and vindication of a Court''s honour and prestige. To allow this would be
to sacrifice deliberately the dispassionate and impartial calm of tribunals, and to allow a Court''s prestige to be the sport of personal passions.
The offence alleged to have been committed here by the clerk of the plaintiff''s vakil is undoubtedly an offence against public justice, punishable
u/s 193, Indian Penal Code and possibly also u/s 199, Indian Penal Code. The Court in its discretion has declined to prosecute on the ground that
there was not a strong prima facie case and that no prosecution at all is far better than a prosecution which is likely to prove abortive.
The defendant cannot be allowed to prosecute merely because he feels that he has been personally dishonoured. It is not indeed clear how such
a prosecution can vindicate bis honour. The refusal of the Court to prosecute is final. It must mean that there should be no prosecution at all for this
alleged offence. The complainant, who is animated by a sense of personal grievance, cannot be allowed or trusted to be an impartial advocate and
deputy of the Court in the role of prosecutor.
I allow this petition. The complaint is dismissed as barred by Section 195(b), Criminal Procedure Code.