Judgment Nagendra Roy, J. 1. This case was referred to a Division Bench by order dated 9-4-1992 on the ground that a similar point is involved in Cr. Misc. No.7806/88. The aforesaid case we have already disposed of by separate order. As. in onr opinion, the point involved in that case was different and accordingly, we are disposing of this application seperately on merit. 2. The petitioner has filed the present application for quashing the order dated 28-2-92, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dumka. in Complaint Case No.26/91 by which the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance under Sec.211 of the Indian Panal Code and ordered for issuancs of process against the petitioner. 3. It appears that opposite party No.2 filed a petition of complaint before the Chief Judiciel Magistrate, which was numbered as Complaint Case no.216/91 alleging, inter alia, that the Junior Engineer Sitarm Singh of Water wage Sub-divisional Office, Rangalia, lodged a first information rerport on 4-8-l991 with regard to a theft of Water Pump by some unknown person according to the complainant, the petitioner, during the investigation of the aforesaid case, came and raided the house of the complainant, assaulted his family members, removed the articles and humilliated him as well as his family members. He has given the details of the articles removed by opposite party No.2 In paragraph 15 of ths complaint petition, he has stated that the accused has committed the offence under Saction 211 I. P. C and, accordingly, prayed for taking action against the petitioner. 4. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dumka, examined the complainant on solemn affirmation on 26-9-1991 and sent the matter to the court of another Magistrate under Sec.192 Cr. P. C. for enquiry/trial, 5. The learned Magistrate, before whom the case was pending, examined 4 witnesses and by order dated 22-2-1992 , he came to the conclusion that a prima facie case under Sec.211 I. P. C. has been made out and, accordingly, he ordered for issuance of processes against the petitioner. 6. A police case was instituted against unknown with regard to the theft of Water Pump, which was numbered as G. R. Case No.619/91, in which the complainant opposite party was made an accused and was granted bail on 13-8-1991, as is evident from the order-sheet of that case (Annexure-3 ). 6. A police case was instituted against unknown with regard to the theft of Water Pump, which was numbered as G. R. Case No.619/91, in which the complainant opposite party was made an accused and was granted bail on 13-8-1991, as is evident from the order-sheet of that case (Annexure-3 ). In the police case it appears that the police later on submitted a final report. 7. Learned, counsel for the petitioner contended that in this case cognizance taken under Sec.211 I. P. C. on the basis of complaint made by opposite party No.2 is bad in law for the reason that according to the allegation in the complaint the petitioner is alleged to have laid a false charge against the complainant which is an offence under Sec.211 I. P. C. but the said offence has been committed by the petitioner in relation to a procseding in the court and the court concerned alone is competent to file the complaint. Elaborating his submission he stated that the opposite party No.2 was granted bail by the court of the Judicial Magistrate in the police case in which he was suspected as an accused and once the bail was granted by the court the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner must be regarded to have been committed in relation to the proceeding pending in the court and the peoper authority to file a complaint for prosecution under Sec.211 I. P. C. is the court which granted bail or a superior court. . 8. Learned counsel for the other side contenned that the complaint petition, even at the instance of opposite party No.2 is maintainable for the offence under Sec.211 I. P. C. 9. Section 211 I. P. C. provided that whoever, with intent to cause injury to any person, institutes or cause to be instituted any criminal proceeding against that person, or falsely charges any person with having committed an offence, knowing that there is no just or lawful ground for such proceeding or charge against that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description as provided under the said section. , Sec.195 (1) (b) Cr. , Sec.195 (1) (b) Cr. P. C. provides, inter alia, that no court shall take cognizance of any offence punihsable under Sec.211 I. P. C. when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any court except on the complaint in writing of that court, or of some other court to which the court is subordinated. The question as to when the proceeding will be treated as as pending before the Court was considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Kamla Pati Trivedi V/s. The State of West Bengal ( AIR 1979 SC 777 ) and it was held that an order for bail passed by a Magistrate also decides the right of the State and the accused and is made by the Magistrate after the application of his mind and therefore in discharge of the duties which factor constitutes it as an act of the court. " It was further held that an order to release on bail amounts to a proceeding before the court and offence under Section 211 I. P. C. must be regarded as an offence committed in relation to the said proceeding and for prosecution for the said offence complaints of the court concerned or Superior Court is necessary in view of the provision of Section 195 (l) (b) of the Code. In the present case, it is admitted position that the complainant was granted bail in the police case by the court and as such the offence under section 211 I. P. C. alleged to have committed by the petitioner must be regarded as one committed in relation to the said proceeding and the proper person to file complaint in the present case is the court which granted the bail or the Superior Court as required by Sec.195 (1) (b) of the Code of criminal Procedure. The complaint at the instance of the opposite party was not maintainable and cognizance taken on the basis of the said complaint is bad in law. 10. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the impugned order taking cognizance under Sec.211 I. P. C. against the petitioner is quashed. Application Allowed.