Judgment :- 1. Second respondent herein filed O.P. No. 22/1966 for redemption of a Kanom. That Kanom was executed by Puthiya Veettil Tharward. The 2nd respondent claimed herself to be the senior-most member of that Tharward. In fact she was not even a member of that Tharward. On account of that misrepresentation she got an ex parte order in her favour. The petitioner herein filed O. S.50/1971 before the Munsiff's Court, Payyannur for a declaration of his title and for recovery of the property involved in O.P. 22/1966. That suit was decreed. In the first appeal it was confirmed. In Second Appeal the case was remanded for fresh disposal. There-upon the trial court specifically found that the 2nd respondent herein was an impostor and that the decree obtained by her in O. P. 22/1966 was vitiated by fraud. The court found that the 2nd respondent was a stranger to the Puthiya Veettil Tharward. The 2nd respondent though challenged the decree of the trial court did not succeed. Before the appellate court she had not challenged the finding entered by the learned Munsiff that she is an impostor. 2. The petitioner herein then filed I. A. 1245/77 in O. S.50/1971 for taking appropriate action against 2nd respondent for giving false evidence. The learned Munsiff ordered to prefer a complaint against the 2nd respondent before the competent criminal court for offences u/Ss.181, 415 and 416 IPC. That order was challenged before the Sessions Court Tellicherry in Crl. Appeal No. 47 of 1983. That court held that offences u/Ss.181, 415 and 416 or 419 IPC will not stand against the 2nd respondent but directed the complainant to proceed against her for offence u/S 193 of IPC. There-after the learned Munsiff filed a complaint before the court below. That complaint was entertained as C. C. 125/1983. The 2nd respondent entered appearance before the court and contended that the offence complained against are those u/Ss. 181, 415 and 416 IPC, that by virtue of the decision in Crl. Appeal No". 47/83 the complaint for those offences is not maintainable and that she could be proceeded against only for offence u/S 193 IPC. It was further contended that since the complaint was not for offence u/S. 193 IPC she must not be proceeded against. This contention of the 2nd respondent was accepted by the learned Magistrate. Appeal No". 47/83 the complaint for those offences is not maintainable and that she could be proceeded against only for offence u/S 193 IPC. It was further contended that since the complaint was not for offence u/S. 193 IPC she must not be proceeded against. This contention of the 2nd respondent was accepted by the learned Magistrate. Accordingly she was discharged u/S 239 of the Code of Crl. Procedure. This order of discharge is under challenge. 3. The complaint filed by the learned Munsiff brings out all relevant facts which lead to the prosecution. From the facts narrated therein it is clear that a prima facie case punishable u/S 193 IPC has been made out. In the complaint while mentioning the offence S.193 IPC was not mentioned. Instead Sections mentioned were 181, 415 and 416 IPC. On account of the mis-description of the Section, can the complaint be thrown out and the accused discharged? The answer to this question should be in the negative. 4. It is not the number of the Section mentioned in the complaint which is to be looked into. The material facts which are averred in the complaint are to be looked into for finding out whether an offence under the Indian Penal Code is made out. S.2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure defines 'complaint' as any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report. That complaint is to contain allegations constituting the offence. The misdescription of the Section will not make the complaint anything other than the complaint as defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure. Mis-description of the Section of the IPC with reference to the offence made out by the facts alleged does not in any way go to vitiate the complaint. The court is to look into the averments made by the complainant and not on the description of the Section of the Penal Code. When a complaint has been made to the court, the court is free to frame any charge on the basis of the facts alleged therein. It is the allegations of facts which constitute the complaint. The court is to look into the averments made by the complainant and not on the description of the Section of the Penal Code. When a complaint has been made to the court, the court is free to frame any charge on the basis of the facts alleged therein. It is the allegations of facts which constitute the complaint. Since it is the allegations of facts which constitute the complaint the misdescription of the Section relating to the offence will not be fatal to the prosecution. Further reference to specific sections relating to the offences made out the facts alleged is not an essential ingredient of a complaint. In the instant case a reading of the complaint filed by the learned Munsiff brings out all necessary ingredients of the offence u/S 193 I.P.C. It is true that the complaint did not make mention of that offence in the cause title to the complaint. The nonmention of the Section cannot be taken as a defect in the complaint entitling the accused to get a discharge. Consequently the court below was clearly in error in discharging the 2nd respondent herein u/S 239 of the Code of Crl. Procedure. 5. In the light of what has been stated above, I set aside the order of discharge passed by the learned Magistrate in C. C. 157/1985. That learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Payyannur, is directed to take back C.C.157/85 to his file and to dispose of the same in accordance with law and in the light of observations made earlier in this order. The Crl. Revision Petition is allowed.