CrPC complaint jurisdiction limited to the ordinary appellate court; special forums cannot make or sustain the complaint.

Section 195(3) CrPC restricts complaints under sections 476 and 476-A to the original court or the court to which appeals ordinarily lie from that court. A special appellate forum created under the Punjab Courts Act does not satisfy that test, so the Senior Subordinate Judge lacked jurisdiction to make the complaint and the Additional District Judge lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. The High Court could set aside the unauthorized order, but it could not itself sustain or make the complaint; the proper course was remand to the District Judge for decision according to law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Senior Subordinate Judge had jurisdiction to make a complaint under sections 476 and 476-A of the Criminal Procedure Code in view of section 195(3) and the Punjab Courts Act, 1918; (ii) Whether the Additional District Judge had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal against that order; (iii) Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to uphold the complaint and whether its revisional interference was proper.

Issue (i): Whether the Senior Subordinate Judge had jurisdiction to make a complaint under sections 476 and 476-A of the Criminal Procedure Code in view of section 195(3) and the Punjab Courts Act, 1918.

Analysis: Section 195 imposes an express bar on cognizance of offences under sections 193 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code except upon a complaint by the court concerned or a court to which that court is subordinate within the meaning of section 195(3). For that purpose, the relevant appellate court is the court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the decrees of the original court. The special appellate jurisdiction conferred on the Senior Subordinate Judge by notification was not the ordinary appellate forum for all such courts and therefore did not answer the statutory test. Under the Punjab Courts Act, the Senior Subordinate Judge was a separate court and not the successor or appellate authority contemplated by section 195(3).

Conclusion: The Senior Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction to make the complaint.

Issue (ii): Whether the Additional District Judge had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal against that order.

Analysis: The Punjab Courts Act constituted the Court of the Additional Judge as a distinct class of court with limited functions assigned by the District Judge. It was not merely an administrative division of the District Court and was not the ordinary appellate forum to which appeals from the original court lay for purposes of section 195(3). The statutory scheme therefore did not authorize the Additional District Judge to assume jurisdiction over the matter.

Conclusion: The Additional District Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.

Issue (iii): Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to uphold the complaint and whether its revisional interference was proper.

Analysis: Although the High Court could set aside the order of a subordinate court that had assumed jurisdiction it did not possess, it could not itself make the complaint because the power under section 476 could be exercised only by the original court or the court subordinate to it within the meaning of section 195(3). In this case, the High Court was neither of those courts. Its proper course was to remit the matter to the District Judge for decision according to law.

Conclusion: The High Court could not validly uphold the complaint, though it was right in setting aside the unauthorized order.

Final Conclusion: The complaint-making order was without jurisdiction, the High Court's order sustaining it could not stand, and the matter had to be sent back to the District Judge for fresh disposal in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: For the purposes of section 195(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the competent court is the court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the original court in the statutory sense, and a complaint under sections 476 and 476-A can be made only by the original court or that statutorily subordinate court, not by a court lacking such jurisdiction under the local procedural scheme.

---