https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169777 A private complaint alleging false evidence in allotment proceedings could not sustain cognizance under Section 193 IPC because those proceedings were treated as civil-court proceedings for that purpose, triggering the Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC bar and requiring a written complaint by the court concerned. The complaint also failed to plead any factual basis for Section 201 IPC, as it did not identify destroyed evidence, the connected offence, or the requisite intent to screen an offender. Section 199 IPC was likewise not made out because no specific false statement was precisely pleaded or shown to be knowingly false. The criminal proceedings were therefore treated as an abuse of process and quashed. en-us Fri, 15 Jan 1982 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 May 2015 12:34:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169777 A private complaint alleging false evidence in allotment proceedings could not sustain cognizance under Section 193 IPC because those proceedings were treated as civil-court proceedings for that purpose, triggering the Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC bar and requiring a written complaint by the court concerned. The complaint also failed to plead any factual basis for Section 201 IPC, as it did not identify destroyed evidence, the connected offence, or the requisite intent to screen an offender. Section 199 IPC was likewise not made out because no specific false statement was precisely pleaded or shown to be knowingly false. The criminal proceedings were therefore treated as an abuse of process and quashed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 15 Jan 1982 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169777