Judgment :- 1. Crl. MP No. 4089/85 filed by the petitioner before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Adimali on 24-10-1985 alleging commission of offences punishable under S.427 and 447 read with S.34 of the Indian Penal Code by some persons was forwarded by the Magistrate under S.156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for investigation to the second respondent Sub Inspector. Second respondent registered a case and on investigation, he came to the conclusion that the allegations are false. He issued a notice to the petitioner stating that the case is referred as false. Hence the petitioner filed another complaint on the same facts before the same Magistrate and it is being adjourned since the report of investigation was not received. Meanwhile second respondent filed Annexure Al complaint before the same Magistrate against the petitioner alleging commission of an offence punishable under S.181 of the Indian Penal Code in having filed Crl. MP No. 4089/85 before the Magistrate with false allegations. The Magistrate took cognizance of the offence as ST No. 679/85 and issued process to the petitioner. The present petition was filed for quashing the proceedings as an abuse of the process of law in exercise of the inherent powers of this Court. 2. There is allegation of malafides against the Sub Inspector which must normally be true if he was confirms of his powers and limitations and the provision of the relevant laws including S.181 of the Indian Penal Code. Otherwise he was acting in complete ignorance which also is not a credence to the Sub Inspector who may have to deal with crimes and law and order. Anyhow the Sub-Inspector who filed the complaint for an offence under S 181 of the Indian Penal Code and the Magistrate who took cognizance of that offence and issued process were both moving in the dark in respect of their powers, functions and duties. The Sub Inspector could file a complaint only in cases where he is authorised under any provision and the Magistrate could take cognizance only after considering various aspects which any include (1) the authority of the person who files the complaint, (2) whether the offence itself is disclosed and, (3) whether he is competent to rake cognizance as he has done. 3. In order to constitute an offence punishable under S.181 of the Indian Penal Code various ingredients are necessary. 3. In order to constitute an offence punishable under S.181 of the Indian Penal Code various ingredients are necessary. They are: (a) The accused took an oath or made the affirmation in question (b) He was legally bound to state the truth (c) such oath or affirmation was administered by a public servant or by a person authorised by law to administer the same (d) While so bound by oath or affirmation the accused made the statement in question to such person (e) The statement was made touching the subject on which he was thereby bound to state the truth (f) The statement was false and (g) The accused knew that his statement was false or bad reason to believe it was false or did not believe it was true. A falsehood made in good faith that it is true will not expose him to penalty. If only all these ingredients are there the action will constitute the offence. 4. Here there is no question of perjury. No oath or affirmation was administered either by the Magistrate or the Sub Inspector and the accused did not take an oath before either of them. Sworn statement was not recorded, by the Magistrate and the accused did not make any statement before the Sub Inspector. The complaint filed before the Magistrate is not a statement made on oath or affirmation by a person legally bound by oath or affirmation to state the truth on any subject on which he is bound to do so. The Sub Inspector has no such case also in the complaint. Therefore there is no question of the allegations in the complaint constituting an offence punishable under S.181 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Let us assume without conceding that all the allegations in Crl. MP 4089/85 are false and it will constitute an offence punishable under S.181 of the Indian Penal Code. Even then is the Sub-Inspector entitled to file a complaint. The answer is a definite no. Even though the general law is that anybody could set the law in motion and bring an offender to justice before a court of law and eventhough it is also the duty of a citizen, there are certain exceptions to it and S.195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides one such exception. The answer is a definite no. Even though the general law is that anybody could set the law in motion and bring an offender to justice before a court of law and eventhough it is also the duty of a citizen, there are certain exceptions to it and S.195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides one such exception. The object is to prevent improper and reckless prosecutions by private persons for offences in connection with the administration of public justice and those relating to the contempt of lawful authority of a public servant. It is aimed at giving protection to parties and witnesses against vexatious or frivolous prosecutions for their resorting to courts and giving evidence therein. Such protection is afforded by prescribing the necessity of a complaint by the court in or in relation to whose proceedings the offence is alleged to have been committed. Among other things, S.195(1)(a)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure says that no court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under S.181 IPC except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. That is a total prohibition to the court in taking cognizance otherwise than as provided and it is a matter affecting jurisdiction also. Cognizance cannot be taken on the complaint of any other person and the contravention is illegal. In this case even taking for granted that the complaint is false and an offence as alleged is made out (which it is not) the officer competent to file the complaint is only the Magistrate or his official supervisor, which anyhow the Sub Inspector is not. He had no business to usurp the powers. 6. Has the Sub-Inspector or any other police officer the authority or jurisdiction to decide finally whether the allegations in the complaint are false? No. Order for investigation under S.156(3) is only a recognizance stage investigation to decide whether cognizance has to be taken or not instead of taking cognizance under S.200. Post cognizance stage investigation is only under S.202. Even when a refer report is filed by the police officer on the basis of the investigation conducted as ordered under S.156(3) the power is with the Magistrate to accept it or not. Post cognizance stage investigation is only under S.202. Even when a refer report is filed by the police officer on the basis of the investigation conducted as ordered under S.156(3) the power is with the Magistrate to accept it or not. He can act on the report and discharge the accused or even straight away issue process against the accused rejecting the report or apply his mind to the complaint filed before him and take action under S.190(8). Magistrate can also ignore the police report under S.156(3) and proceed with the complaint. In this case, the Sub Inspector thought of usurping the powers of the Magistrate which even the Magistrate did not have. He did not file the report before court and even if he filed it he did not wait for the decision of the Magistrate. When the complaint and report are pending consideration by the Magistrate, before deciding to take cognizance or not, the Sub Inspector thought of influencing the judicial mind of the court by filing a complaint alleging that the petition was false and frivolous to the knowledge of the petitioner. That is evidently nothing short of misuse of official position. Sub Inspector can form his own conclusions on the materials collected by him during investigation and decide whether the accused is to be placed for trial or a refer report is to be filed. That is his field and the Magistrate cannot interfere in it. But when the report is filed his duty and power ends except in the cases of further investigation. Then it is the field of the Magistrate to decide what action is to be taken. Before the Magistrate takes action the Sub Inspector has no business to decide for the purpose of prosecution that the complaint is false, The action of the Magistrate in taking cognizance of the offence on such a complaint has created a further analogous and ironical situation. The complaint is awaiting police report before the Magistrate to decide whether cognizance has to be taken or not. At that stage he takes cognizance of an offence alleging that the complaint pending before him at the pre-cognizance awaiting police report itself is false to the knowledge of the complainant. That is also prejudging the views on the complaint. The complaint is awaiting police report before the Magistrate to decide whether cognizance has to be taken or not. At that stage he takes cognizance of an offence alleging that the complaint pending before him at the pre-cognizance awaiting police report itself is false to the knowledge of the complainant. That is also prejudging the views on the complaint. Thereafter how can the Magistrate have a fair and impartial mind in deciding whether cognizance on the complaint has to be taken or not. 7. Even taking for granted that what is disclosed is not an offence under S.181 but one under S.211 of the Indian Penal Code, it falls under two categories namely a complaint to the Magistrate and a report of a cognizable offence to a police officer. Here, there is no report to the police officer but only a complaint to the Magistrate which was forwarded to the police officer for investigation. Even in such a case under S.195(1)(b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure there is an absolute prohibition against the Court in taking cognizance except on the complaint in writing of the court or some other court to which that court is subordinate. The Sub Inspector has no place here also. 8. It was ignoring all these provisions that the Sub Inspector filed the complaint and the Magistrate took cognizance. Magistrates are expected to take cognizance only after considering all these aspects and applying their judicial mind. Otherwise, they will be unnecessarily dragging innocent persons before court and compelling them to undergo the unnecessary ordeal of a criminal trial. 9. There is another illegality also committed by the Magistrate. S.181 of the Indian Penal Code deals with an offence punishable with imprisonment upto three years and fine. The case was taken to file by the Magistrate as a summary trial case. Under S.260 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate could try in a summary way only offences not punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years and that too only if he thinks fit. 10. The matter does not end there. Whether the offence is under S.181 or 211 of the Indian Penal Code it will come within the ambit of S.195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. S.340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with the procedure to be adopted in such cases. 10. The matter does not end there. Whether the offence is under S.181 or 211 of the Indian Penal Code it will come within the ambit of S.195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. S.340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with the procedure to be adopted in such cases. That section is intended to be complementary to S.195 which creates a bar on the filing of a complaint by all and sundry. S.340 removes the bar by conferring jurisdiction on the court to file the complaint. It prescribes the procedure to be followed in the case of complaints by courts in respect of offences mentioned in Clause (b) of S.195(1). Mere satisfaction that an offence appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in court is not sufficient. An enquiry should be conducted and the court should not launch prosecution unless it also considers that it is expedient in the interest of justice to launch the prosecution. Prosecution is not undertaken to satisfy the private grudge of a litigant. Though wide discretion is given to the court, it should be exercised with care and caution in as much as the object of S.195 and 340 is to provide a safeguard against frivolous or vexatious prosecutions. The Section is applicable only when the court considers that an enquiry should be made into such an offence. The complaint has to be filed only after recording a finding to that effect. None of these provisions were adhered to by the Magistrate or the Sub Inspector. The complaint is not only unauthorised but it is also illegal since absolutely no offence is involved. The action of the Magistrate in taking cognizance and issuing process is also illegal. The petition is allowed and the entire proceedings in ST No. 679 of 1985 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Adimali are quashed. The Magistrate will proceed to take action on the complaint filed by the petitioner or the police report based on it, if action has not already been taken.