Order This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.169 of 1981 on the file of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Thirukalukundram. The accused is the petitioner. 2. The petitioner gave a complaint of theft against his servant, one Anbu alias Veerappan on 19.7.1980 to the Sub Inspector of Police, Tirupporur. After the investigation, the police referred the case as false and sent a final report to the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Tirukkalikundram. The Judicial Second Class Magistrate by his order dated 31.12.1981 recorded the final report of the Sub Inspector of Police as false. Thereafter, the Sub Inspector of Police, Tirupporur filed a charge-sheet against the petitioner before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Tirukkalikundram for an offence under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code in that the petitioner gave to the Sub Inspector of Police information which he knew to be false, in order to cause him to use his lawful power to the injury or annoyance of the said Anbu alias Veerappan. The charge-sheet has been taken on file by the Judicial Second Class Magistrate in C.C.No. 169 of 1981. The petitioner/ accused raised a preliminary objection to the taking cognizance of the offence, but, the learned Judicial Second Class Magistrate by his order dated 3.4.1982 overruled the objection and hence this petition to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.169 of 1981 on the file of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Tirukkalikundram. 3. The charge-sheet against the petitioner has been filed for an offence under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code by the Sub Inspector of Police, Tirupporur in accordance with Section 195(l)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the offence falls not under Section 182 but under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 195 (1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure the offence could not be taken cognizance of except on the complaint in writing of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Tirukkalikurdram. 4. The first question which arises for consideration is whether the offence complained of falls under Section 182 or 211 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The first question which arises for consideration is whether the offence complained of falls under Section 182 or 211 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code deals with the offence of giving false information to a public servant intending thereby such public servant to use his lawful power to injury or, annoyance of any person. Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code deals the offence of instituting or causing to be instituted any criminal proceeding against any person, or falsely charging any person for having committed an offence with intent to cause injury to any person knowing that there was no just or lawful ground for such proceeding Or charges against that person. Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code deals with a lesser offence while Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code refers to a graver offence. If the information conveyed to the police amounts to the institution of criminal proceedings against a defined person or amounts to the falsely charging of a defined person with an offence then the person giving such information is guilty of an offence under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code. In such a case, Section 211 is and Section 182 is not the proper section under which a charge has to be framed. Section 182 read with Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code must be understood as referring to cases where the information given to the public servant falls short of amounting to an institution of criminal proceedings against a defined person and falls short of amounting to the falsely charging of a defined person with an offence as defined in the Penal Code. When a person specifically complains that another man committed an offence and does so falsely with the object of causing injury to that person, he is guilty of making a false charge of an offence under Section 211 and not under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner herein has given a complaint of theft of cash and other articles from his house against a defined person viz., Anbu alias Veerappan who was formerly employed under him. The complaint having turned out to be false, the case falls under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner herein has given a complaint of theft of cash and other articles from his house against a defined person viz., Anbu alias Veerappan who was formerly employed under him. The complaint having turned out to be false, the case falls under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code. Further, when a complaint sets forth certain facts disclosing a minor offence and also a graver offence the prosecution should ordinarily be for the graver offence as pointed out by this Court IN RE. Dhollia IN RE. Dhollia I.L.R. 54 Mad. 1018. I therefore hold that the prosecution in this case falls under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Code of Criminal procedure on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner runs thus: “No Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under any of the following Sections of the Indian Penal Code, namely, ‘Sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or of some other Court to which that Court is Subordinate.” It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code being one of the sections aforesaid, the complaint ought to be given only by the Court of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Tirukkalikundram, who has recorded the final report of the Sub Inspector of Police and the complaint now given by the Sub Inspector of Police is incompetent. It is not in all cases that the complaint has to be given only by the Court in the case of offences mentioned in Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Only when the offence is alleged to have been committed in or in relation to any proceeding in any Court, that Court alone is competent to give that complaint Therefore, when an offence is not committed in or in relation to any proceeding in any Court, a complaint of such an offence can be made by a private individual. 6. This question came up for consideration before a Bench of three learned Judges of the Supreme Court in Kamalapati Trivedi v. State of West Bengal Kamalapati Trivedi v. State of West Bengal (1979)2 S.C.R. 717: (1979) Crl.L.J. 679: A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 777. 6. This question came up for consideration before a Bench of three learned Judges of the Supreme Court in Kamalapati Trivedi v. State of West Bengal Kamalapati Trivedi v. State of West Bengal (1979)2 S.C.R. 717: (1979) Crl.L.J. 679: A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 777. The appellant, therein filed a complaint within the Police that one Satyanarayanan and five others criminally trespassed, assaulted and abused him in filthy language and committed theft of money and valuable documents of the school of which he was the Secretary. The case was registered by the police under Sections 147, 448 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and warrants were issued for the arrest of those accused. They surrendered before the Court of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Howrah, who released them on bail. After investigation, the police sent a report to the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, holding the complaint to be false and included a prayer that the accused may be released from the charge. The Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, agreeing with the report, passed the order discharging the accused. One of the accused therein thereupon preferred a private complaint under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code alleging that the appellant had instituted a criminal proceeding with intend to cause injury to him and others knowing that there was no just or lawful ground and thereby caused pecuniary loss and agony to him. The appellant moved the High Court for quashing the proceedings before the Magistrate because in the absence of a complaint in writing by the Magistrate himself, the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code in view of the provisions of Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High court refused to quash the proceedings. On appeal to the Supreme Court by Special Leave, the majority of the Judges held that the order passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate on the report submitted by the police under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was a judicial order passed by the Magistrate in his capacity as a Court and the bar of Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure would be attracted. This decision is in all fours with the facts of the case before me. This decision is in all fours with the facts of the case before me. The learned Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Tirukkalikundram has passed the following order on 31.12.1981 on the report submitted by the police under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: “Proceedings of the Judicial II Class Magistrate, Tirukkalikundram. Section 173 Cr.P.C., dt. 31.12.1981. 7. Brief statement of facts of the case and reasons for the order. ORDER That on 19.7.80 at 5 P.M., at Agaram Village the above accused committed theft of cash of Rs.6,000/- Bush Radio and undial box with cash from the house of complainant. When the complainant and his wife went away from the house. The Police has referred the case as false. The records perused. The final report is recorded as false. Sd. K. Manoharan, Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Tirukkalikundram, dt. 31.12.1981.” The only difference between this order and the order passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Howrah in the case before the Supreme Court is that in the order on hand there is no reference to the discharge of the accused. In the case before the Supreme Court the accused were arrested pending investigation and released on bail and hence there has been an order discharging them. No such occasion arose in the case on hand and that makes no difference. What we have to see is, whether the Judicial Second Class Magistrate; applied his mind and whether the order passed by him is a judicial order. A perusal of the order passed by the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Tirukkalikundram would clearly show that the learned Magistrate perused the records and has recorded the final report of the Police. It is therefore a judicial order passed by the Judicial Second Class Magistrate in his capacity as a Court. It follows that Section 195(l)(b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is attracted and in the absence of a complaint in writing of the Magistrate himself the offence under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code could not be taken cognizance of. The proceedings have therefore to be quashed. 7. In the result, the petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.169 of 1981 on the file of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Tirukkalikundram are quashed. R.S.R. ----- Petition allowed.