Order On 17th April, 1969, which was a Thursday, at about 3-20 p.m., there was a collision between Car MYZ 1775 belonging to Dr. H.T. Gangol, and driven by him, and the M.S.R.T.C. Bus bearing No. MYF 4920, driven by N.P. Habib, on the Lamington Road, opposite to the Head Post Office, Hubli, in which collision both the vehicles sustained some damage. Dr. Gangol immediately gave a complaint (Exhibit P-1) to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Traffic Branch, Hubli, viz., P.W. 8 N. Damodar, alleging rashness and negligence on the part of N.P. Habib. That complaint Exhibit P-1 runs as follows: “……….On Thursday at 3-20 p.m. I was coming from my Nursing Home after my operative work. I was to attend my work at K.M.C. As I came near the Head Post Office, I saw people gathered, in the traffic crossing area between the L.I.C. Office, Post Office and the traffic island spot. A city bus was standing in front of the Post Office, a truck was far ahead of it, and a”bullock cart was to its left. By this time, I came by the left side of the City bus slowly. I had to pass on to Deshpande Nagar and since the City bus was seen standing — not started, and as per my judgment I thought my vehicle could easily pass on. — My vehicle was by this time far ahead of the City bus. Then I felt and took turn to the right side, at this time, I gave full horn, and indicated to the man standing by the side of the driver that I am passing to the right side. By the time to my surprise, the City bus also started and hit my side of the car on the rear side, and encrossed up to the front door, passing my car to the left side. I thought he is continuing thus. I tried to take to the left side. By then the bus stopped. I also stopped, got out of the car from the left side door……..” The Sub-Inspector of Police (P.W. 8) registered a case in Crime No. 22 of 1969. He then complied a spot panchanama (Exhibit P-3) attested by Parasuram (P.W. 3) and K.Y. Pujari (P.W. 4). I tried to take to the left side. By then the bus stopped. I also stopped, got out of the car from the left side door……..” The Sub-Inspector of Police (P.W. 8) registered a case in Crime No. 22 of 1969. He then complied a spot panchanama (Exhibit P-3) attested by Parasuram (P.W. 3) and K.Y. Pujari (P.W. 4). After examining the witnesses, and completion of the investigation, the Sub-Inspector (P.W. 8) laid the charge-sheet on 27th April, 1969, in the trial Court, alleging offences under sections 279 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and section 116 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act, against the accused viz., N.P. Habib. The case was taken on file as C.C. No. 740 of 1969. For the prosecution eight witnesses were examined. When questioned under section 342, Criminal Procedure Code, the accused stated that the complainant (P.W. 2 Gangol) himself dashed while going towards Deshpande Nagar. The accused did not examine any defence witnesses. P.W. 2 Dr. Gangol is the complainant. Krishna Malik (P.W. 1), Nabi Sab (P.W.6) and Yellappa (P.W. 7) were examined as eye-witnesses. Parashuram (P.W. 3) was examined both as a eye-witness and a pancha to the spot mahazar (Exhibit P-3). K.Y. Pujari (P.W. 4) was examined as a pancha to that same mahazar. Ramiah (P.W. 5) is a Mechanic in the M.S.R.T.C. and is only a formal witness, and Damodar (P.W. 8) is the Sub-Inspector and the Investigating Officer. P.Ws. 1, 3, 6 and 7 were treated as hostile by the prosecution and cross-examined by them. Their contradictions in the statements recorded by the Police under section 161 (3), Criminal Procedure Code, were marked Exhibit P-1 (e), P-2, P-6 and P-7 respectively, and they were proved by the Investigating Officer (P.W. 8). The pancha (P.W. 4) was also treated as hostile by the prosecution. By his order dated 18th December 1969, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused. He also issued a show cause notice under section 250 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the complainant P.W. 2 Dr. Gangol. Paragraph 7 of his judgment reads as follows: — “For the above reasons, I hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove thai the accused was rash and negligent in the driving of the State Transport Bus or that the collision was the result of any rashness or negligence on the part of the accused. Gangol. Paragraph 7 of his judgment reads as follows: — “For the above reasons, I hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove thai the accused was rash and negligent in the driving of the State Transport Bus or that the collision was the result of any rashness or negligence on the part of the accused. On the other hand, the clear indications available from the record, point to the fact that the complainant exhibited rashness and negligence of a high degree. But the investigating officer, for reasons best known to himself, has not thought it fit to bother about such rashness or negligence on the part of the complainant. The complainant himself having been responsible for the collision rushed to the police station and, that being the case, his complaint in my opinion will have to be considered as false. The accused is a poor driver of the M.S.R.T.C, consequently, it is a fit case where I should call upon the complainant to show cause as to why he should not be directed to pay compensation to the accused under section 250 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In the result the accused is acquitted under section 245 (1) , Criminal Procedure Code, and show cause summons under section 250 , Criminal Procedure Code, is ordered to be issued to the complainant calling upon him to appear in Court on 20th December, 1969, and to show cause why he shall not be directed to pay compensation to the accused to be determined by the Court under section 250 (2), Criminal Procedure Code.” The complainant Dr. Gangol (P.W. 2) has come up in this Criminal Revision Petition praying that the Magistrate's order made under clause (1) of section 250 be quashed, the notice to show cause be cancelled, and the proceedings be dropped. The accused N.P. Habib, who is the first respondent here, was duly served with the notice. He has chosen to remain absent. The Public Prosecutor appearing for the second respondent — State represents that his role in this petition is only to assist the Court. According to the learned State Public Prosecutor, this Revision Petition is premature. I do not agree. He has chosen to remain absent. The Public Prosecutor appearing for the second respondent — State represents that his role in this petition is only to assist the Court. According to the learned State Public Prosecutor, this Revision Petition is premature. I do not agree. If there is compelling reason in the interests of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of the Court and to put a stop at the earliest point of time to unnecessary harassment of an aggrieved party, this Court can certainly interfere in Revision regarding an order to show cause passed under clause (1) of section 250, Criminal Procedure Code, without the petitioner having to wait painfully until the stages of clauses (2) and (3) of that section. Under clause (1) the Magistrate has to be of the opinion that the accusation is false and frivolous or false and vexatious. As seen from paragraph 7 of his order, set out above, the learned Magistrate only says that in his opinion the complaint will have to be considered as false. Incidentally, it is significant to note that in the order the words “frivolous and vexatious” were also originally there following the word “false”, but those words have been struck off by the Magistrate. A Magistrate must record in his order of discharge or acquittal a finding that the accusation against the accused was false and either frivolous or vexatious. There must be a definite finding to that effect. When there is a finding that he accusation is false, the absence of the finding that it was also frivolous or vexatious is a irregularity (Vide Ramasagar Singh v. Chandrika Singh1) Such an irregularity, as argued by the petitioner's learned Advocate Sri R.M. Patil, attracts the provisions of section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the correctness of the order to show cause passed under clause (1) of section 250. The propriety of the Magistrate's finding that the complaint of the petitioner Dr. Gangol (P.W. 2), is false, is also assailed by Sri R.M. Patil on various grounds, and I feel rightly. The petitioner's car was damaged in the collision. He rushed to the Police Station and gave the complaint (Exhibit P-1). The accused M.P. Habib (first respondent) did not give any complaint, though the bus of which he was the driver, was also damaged in the collision. The petitioner's car was damaged in the collision. He rushed to the Police Station and gave the complaint (Exhibit P-1). The accused M.P. Habib (first respondent) did not give any complaint, though the bus of which he was the driver, was also damaged in the collision. On the complaint Exhibit P-1 of the petitioner, the Police registered a case, compiled the spot mahazar (Exhibit P-3) and examined several witnesses. The Sub-Inspector (P.W. 8) apparently being convinced that there was a case to proceed with against the accused, laid the charge-sheet. The eye-witnesses had stated before him, in terms of the complaint Exhibit P-1 of the petitioner. In the trial Court, however, they resiled and were treated as hostile. The suggestion made to them was that they were out to help the accused N.P. Habib. This person, by remaining absent in this Court, has perhaps demonstrated that he is not interested in the outcome. He appears to be content with the order of acquittal, and probably does not bargain for compensation in addition. No animus in the petitioner against him has been alleged. The mere failure of the prosecution would not, therefore, in my opinion, mean, in the circumstances of this case, that the complaint Exhibit P-1 of the petitioner was wilfully false. The Magistrate's finding that it is false is not proper. In this context, some observations of his Lordship Ramaswami, J., in Natesa Udayar v. Kanagasabai Udayar and others2 are very pertinent— “……..It is no doubt a very salutary provision of law that is embedded in this section ( section 250, Criminal Procedure Code). It is meant to serve as a ckeck on propensities to rush to Court recklessly or to level accusations against innocent people knowing or having reason to believe that they are innocent. It was, however, not to be indiscriminately used as to be a check on legitimate complaints which may be difficult of proof owing to some reason for which the complainant may not be responsible. Indiscriminate use of the provisions of this section may often deter a timid person from approaching the portals of law courts for fear that if per chance his witnesses turned round or somehow did not inspire confindence in the Court he may be mulcted with fine. Indiscriminate use of the provisions of this section may often deter a timid person from approaching the portals of law courts for fear that if per chance his witnesses turned round or somehow did not inspire confindence in the Court he may be mulcted with fine. ……But where the complainant's case is not an improbable one and is merely unable to prove his case, or there is nothing to show that it is wilfully false or that there is any perversion or exaggeration of evidence, it is not proper to hold the complaint false and vexatious. If we bear there principles in mind, there can be no doubt that the failure of the case in the instant case was more due to misfortune of the complainant than on account of any preferring of a false complaint by him.” The present case is a fit one for interference in revision. The revision petition is allowed, the order of the learned Magistrate made under clause (1) of section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is quashed, the notice to the petitioner to show cause is cancelled, and the proceedings are ordered to be dropped. S.V.S. ----- Revision Petition allowed.