JUDGMENT : Das, J. - This is an appeal by the complaint against an order dated 1-2-1964 passed by the Munsif-Magistrate, Puri, acquitting the Respondents of charges under Sections 323, 380 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The accused persons come from one family and they are related as follows Accused Nisamani is the wife of accused Arjun. Accused Rama is the wife of accused Hari and Lochani is their daughter. Accused Narayan is one of their agnates. 3. Admittedly the relationship between the complainant Gopal Rath and accused Arjun Rath was not cordial, there having been some litigations between them. On 16-11-1960, the date of occurrence some goats belonging to accused Hari strayed into the field of the complainant and damaged his Kulthi crop P.w. 5 is the daughter of the complainant and P.W. is his wife. At that time P.W. 1 was working in a field at a distance of about one mile. P.ws. 5 and 6 succeeded in tying one of the goats and then informed the wife of Hari Rath about the incident. There ensued an altercation between Rama, wife of Hari and P.W. 6 in course of which Nisamani, Lochani and some other female member of the family came and quarreled with P.W. 6. P.w. 5 was sent by her mother to give this information to the complainant, and when P.W. 5 informed her father, the latter told her to keep quiet over the matter and he would look to it afterwards P.W. 5 then returned and informed this to her mother. At this stage, it is alleged that accused Arjun and Hari cried out to drag the wife of the complainant and thereafter accused Nisamani, Lochani and Rama entered into the house of the complainant and dragged Sakuntala, his wife. It is said that accused Nisamani snatched away a necklace from her neck and the male accused persons also got into the house, and accused Arjun took away a small brass vessel lying inside the courtyard of the complainant. After this incident, P.W. 5 was again sent to her father to report this matter to him. Thereafter P.W. 1 came running and found from a short distance that about fifteen persons armed with this were standing on his Danda. On seeing him accused Arjun and Hari rushed to assault him. After this incident, P.W. 5 was again sent to her father to report this matter to him. Thereafter P.W. 1 came running and found from a short distance that about fifteen persons armed with this were standing on his Danda. On seeing him accused Arjun and Hari rushed to assault him. Out of fear, the complainant did not go to his house, but went to the police station at Pipli and lodged an F.I.R. (Ext. A) at about 3 p.m., on the same day. According to the complainant, the officer-in-charge of the police station came to the village, but remained in the house of accused Arjun Rath that night and on the following morning informed him that he (complainant) had filed a false case and proceedings u/s 211, Indian Penal Code, would be started against him. As no action was taken on his F.I.R., he lodged a regular complaint on 5-12-1960. After cognizance was taken, the accused persons were ordered to be summoned for offences under Sections 448/380, Indian Penal Code. Later on, the accused persons appeared before the Court and requested the Court to rescind the previous order for issue of summons. In the meantime, on 30-12-1960, the Magistrate received a prosecution report u/s 211, Indian Penal Code, against the complainant. Thereafter the complainant?s case was entrusted to a Magistrate for enquiry and after receipt of the report of the Magistrate the S.D.M. dismissed the complaint u/s 203, Code of Criminal Procedure, and directed the police to take necessary steps against the complainant u/s 211. Against this order, the complainant went in revision before the Court of the A.D.M. (Judicial), who set aside the order of the S.D.M. and directed that the accused should be summoned to stand a trial. Thereafter, all the accused persons were charged u/s 448, Indian Penal Code, and accused Arjun, Nisamani, Lochani and Rama were charged u/s 23, Indian Penal Code, for having assaulted P.W. 6 wife of the complainant. Accused Arjun was charged u/s 380, Indian Penal Code, for having committed theft of a brass vessel from the house of the complainant, and his wife Nisamani was similarly charged for having snatched away a necklace from the neck of P.W. 6. 4. The plea of an the accused was one of a denial. According to them, on account of previous enmity this false case has been started against them. 5. 4. The plea of an the accused was one of a denial. According to them, on account of previous enmity this false case has been started against them. 5. The learned Magistrate acquitted the accused persons u/s 258(1), Code of Criminal Procedure holding the case to be a false, vexatious, and malicious one, and u/s 250, Code of Criminal Procedure directed the complainant to pay a sum of Rs. 30/- to each of the accused persons by way of compensation. It is against this order of the Munsif-Magistrate, the complainant has filed the present appeal. 6. In support of the prosecution case, the complainant has examined six witnesses including himself, his daughter (p.w. 5) and his wife (p.w. 6). I shall, however, first deal with the evidence of p.ws. 3 and 4 who come from different and distant villages and are more or less chance witnesses. 7. P.W. 3 comes from village Ekchalia, at a distance of about two miles from Bilipada the village of occurrence. Similarly P.W. 4 comes from village Palaspur at a distance of about four miles from Bilipada. Neither of them has given any satisfactory explanation as to under what circumstances they happened to be there at the time of occurrence. According to P.W. 3 he had been to village Bilipada and while returning noticed the occurrence in the Danda of the parties. Though in his examination-in-chief he had stated that he was for the first time deposing in this case, in his cross-examination he admitted that he had already deposed in the Courts at Khurda as also at Puri in some other cases. Though the matter was originally investigated by the police and was also enquired by Smt. Shanti Dei, a Magistrate, u/s 202, Code of Criminal Procedure, at none of these stages, P.W. 3 came forward to give his statement. 8. Coming to the evidence of P.W. 4, there is no explanation as to why he had travelled all the distance of about four miles from his village to Bilipada. According to the prosecution the occurrence took place inside the court-yard. This witness admitted that he did not go inside the court-yard, yet he claimed to have seen the occurrence. 8. Coming to the evidence of P.W. 4, there is no explanation as to why he had travelled all the distance of about four miles from his village to Bilipada. According to the prosecution the occurrence took place inside the court-yard. This witness admitted that he did not go inside the court-yard, yet he claimed to have seen the occurrence. In his examination-in chief he categorically stated that he saw four females catching hold of the wife of P.W. 1 in the court-yard, but in his cross-examination he disowned this statement and was unable to say if four females are actually there in the court-yard. At one stage he had stated that after the tussle with the wife of P.W. 1, she fell down. But later on he contradicted this statement and said she never fell down. He is a witness who had deposed in a number of cases on previous occasions. It also appears from his evidence that he was not previously known to the members of the family of the complainant and P.W. 1?s wife enquired about his identity at the time of occurrence. 9. Turning next to the evidence of P.W. 2, it appears that he is a man of the same village Billipada. From his evidence, it appears that the accused Arjun had filed a case against him u/s 107, Code of Criminal Procedure. Thus, admittedly there was enmity between him and accused Arjun. He was going to Laxminarayanpur on the date of occurrence, but returned within few minutes to witness the occurrence. In any case, in view of the enmity with Arjun, it is not safe to rely upon his evidence, though undoubtedly he is a co-villager to the parties. 10. Next we come to the principal witnesses to the occurrence, viz., p.ws. 5 and 6. It appears from the evidence of P.W. 6 that she herself had filed a criminal case against accused Hari and some others prior to the present incident. According to her she sustained an injury mark on her neck when the necklace was snatched away from her by Nisamani. But she admitted that she did not show this injury to any of the witnesses. According to her she sustained an injury mark on her neck when the necklace was snatched away from her by Nisamani. But she admitted that she did not show this injury to any of the witnesses. P.w. 1 admitted that the accused Hari had filed a case against him under the Cattle Trespass Act and he also lodged a station diary entry against some of the accused persons, and his-wife also had filed a criminal case against some of the accused persons five to seven years back. Thus, it is evident that the parties were litigating for a long time past. The girl, P.W. 5 who is of tender years no doubt has supported the prosecution case, but she being the daughter of p.ws. 1 and 6, it is naturally open to the accused to say that her evidence is equally liable to the same comment of interestedness. The fate of the prosecution case, however, rests mainly upon the evidence of P.W. 6 the only adult member of the family and the alleged victim to the major part of the occurrence about whom I have already said before. The accused persons examined P.W. 1, the officer-in-charge of the Police Station, Pipli, who investigated the case on the F.I.R. lodged by the complainant. From his evidence it appears that he examined some witnesses such as p.ws. 2, 5 and 6 in course of investigation of the case and recorded their statements. Though he has been examined to prove some omissions and contradictions in respect of some statements in the evidence of p.ws. 2, 5 and 6, it is clear from what be has recorded that there was some incident on the date of occurrence. His evidence discloses that P.W. 2 stated before him that accused Arjun, Naran and Hari came out of the house of the complainant armed with lathis. Similarly, P.W. 5 stated that she saw her mother crying near the house and P.W. 6 stated that she was assaulted by some female accused persons. F.I.R spite of such evidence I am not in a position to appreciate how a case u/s 211, Indian Penal Code was started against the complainant on the ground that it is altogether a false case. I have already said that the evidence of p.ws. 3 and 4 is not satisfactory inasmuch as they have explained their presence at the place of occurrence and p.ws. I have already said that the evidence of p.ws. 3 and 4 is not satisfactory inasmuch as they have explained their presence at the place of occurrence and p.ws. 1 and 6 had previous enmity with the accused persons which is vulnerable to adverse comments by the accused. I would, therefore, agree with the learned Magistrate that this is a fit case for acquittal. 11. The matter, however, does not rest there. The trying Magistrate while acquitting the accused persons also took the view that the case is a false, vexatious and malicious one and he thus directed the complainant to pay a sum of Rs. 30/- to each of the accused persons. Here, however, the approach of the learned Magistrate was wholly wrong. 12. Mr. Mohapatra, learned Counsel for the Appellant, drew my attention to some portion of the evidence of d.w. 1 and contended that the evidence of the I.O. shows that he had a bias against the complainant and that is why he, instead of filing a charge-sheet, submitted a prosecution against the complainant himself, and that the Magistrate has mainly relied upon that prosecution in acting u/s 250, Code of Criminal Procedure. 13. Before taking action u/s 250, Code of Criminal Procedure the Magistrate must come to a finding of his own that the case is it false one and further it is also frivolous and vexatious. In that case, he has to call upon the complainant to show cause why he should not pay compensation to the accused. The Magistrate has to take into consideration any such cause shown by the complainant and if he is satisfied that the accusation was false and either frivolous or vexatious, then only he can impose the compensation contemplated u/s 250, Code of Criminal Procedure. Neither the order-sheet nor the judgments of the learned Magistrate reveals that the Magistrate had adopted the legal procedure before he acted u/s 250, Code of Criminal Procedure. 14. Further to hold that the case is false the Magistrate has clearly been influenced by the fact that the police wanted to start a case u/s 211, Indian Penal Code against the complainant. It is elementary that the Court has to come to its own decision whether the case is a false one or not. 14. Further to hold that the case is false the Magistrate has clearly been influenced by the fact that the police wanted to start a case u/s 211, Indian Penal Code against the complainant. It is elementary that the Court has to come to its own decision whether the case is a false one or not. Merely because the police on sufficient or insufficient grounds wanted to initiate a proceeding u/s 211, Indian Penal Code, against the complainant, is itself no ground for the Magistrate to rely upon the same in determining the truth or falsity of the case before him. Instead of doing so, he said in paragraph 9 of his judgment: Another circumstance which goes in favour of the accused persons is about the police investigation and a judicial enquiry before a Magistrate. The police found that this is a false case and the learned Magistrate opined that there is no case against the accused persons. There is absolutely no justification as to why their evidence should be brushed aside. There is further no compelling reason as to why police would start a prosecution against him u/s 211, Indian Penal Code. These circumstances rather goes to strengthen the initial presumption of the innocence of the accused persons. It is well-settled that the mere fact that the police on investigation found the complaint to be groundless, is not a sufficient ground to hold that the case is a false one within the meaning of Section 250, Code of Criminal Procedure. It is one thing to acquit the accused for insufficiency of evidence and it is yet another thing to hold that the case is absolutely a false one. One set of evidence may appeal to a particular Court, though it may not do so to the other. I must, therefore, hold that there is absolutely no material to hold that the case is a false one to justify an action u/s 250, Code of Criminal Procedure. While, therefore, maintaining the order of acquittal, I set aside the order of compensation passed u/s 250, Code of Criminal Procedure on the Appellant. The appeal is thus allowed in part. Appeal allowed in part. Final Result : Allowed