against the petitioner was filed by respondent No.4 before S.P. City, which allegedly was found false and the prosecution under Section 182 IPC against respondent No.4 was never launched on the basis of any complaint made in writing by the said public servant i.e. S.P.City or any other officer to whom he is subordinate, but it is the SHO who took the cognizance of the matter. Hence, the Court below while relying upon the cases of Harbans Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 1991(3) RCR 113 and Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Haryana1999(3) RCR (Crl.) 323 rightly concluded that the prosecution against respondent No.4 is bad in view of bar contained in Section 195 Cr.P.C. and accordingly discharged her. Even this Court has a serious doubt as to the maintainability of the present revision petition by Lakhwinder Singh for invoking provisions under Section 182 IPC against respondent No.4, which otherwise can only be resorted to by a public servant from whose end some action is sought. Hence, it cannot be said that the learned Court below has committed any error in law, calling for interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed.
