EMPEROR Vs. BIRDICHAND CHUNNILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BIRDICHAND made a complaint to the Station House Officer, Borakhedi, that two persons had taken Rs. 9 from him by putting him in fear, and the Station House Officer registered an offence under Section 392, Penal Code and in vestigated it. He came to the conclusion that the information was false and reported this to the Additional District Magistrate, Buldana, as required by Section 173, Criminal P.C., Subsequently under the orders of a superior police officer he filed a complaint against Birdichand under Section 211, Penal Code. It was objected that the Court had no jurisdiction to try the case in the absence of a complaint by the Additional District Magistrate, but that objection was overruled. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has reported the case with the recommendation that the proceedings should be quashed.

(2.) SECTION 195(1)(b), Criminal P.C. for bids a Court to take cognizance of an offence under Section 211, Penal Code when such offence is alleged to have been committed in or in relation to any proceeding in any Court except on the complaint in writing of such Court or of soma other Court to which such Court is subordinate. Here there never were any proceedings in any Court, and Section 195(1)(b), in my opinion, is no bar to the present case. The mere fact that a report was made under Section 173, Criminal P.C., does not mean that there were any proceedings in a Court.

(3.) THAT decision was referred to apparently with approval, in Shah Mahomad v. Emperor A.I.R. 1941 Lah. 216, but in that case a complaint was made to a Magistrate after the report had been made to the police; it was held that there could be no complaint under Section 182, Penal Code as the case fell within the purview of Section 211, Penal Code, and that a complaint by the Magistrate was required.