JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. The record of the trial Court perused. 2. In this petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner has made a number of prayers, but, presently I am concerned with the prayer to quash the proceedings under Section 203, 1. P. C. pending against the petitioner in the Court of Addl. Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Bharatpur. 3. In order to appreciate the arguments, brief facts may be narrated. 4. Smt. Laccho, daughter of the petitioner's borhter-in-law, was married to Vasudev son of Jagmohan. She met a homicidal death by a gun shot injury. Crime No. 126/87 was registered at P. S. Kumher, District Bharatpur on the basis of Parcha Bayan of the petitioner. On performing post mortem of the dead body of the deceased Smt. Laccho, the doctor found a bullet wound 5 cm x 4 cm. on her back. It is not disputed before me even by the learned P. P. that Smt. Laccho had met a homicidal death, as a result of gun fire injury. 5. IN the Parcha Bayan, the petitioner has stated that Smt. Laccho, since deceased, was subjected with cruelty by her in-laws, and dowry was being demanded. It was also stated that Jagmohan, father-in-law of the deceased, had made the gun fire causing here death. He also made allegations against the other members of the husband of the deceased. 6. After registration of the case, it appears that the investigation was transferred to the C. I. D., (CB) and ultimately a charge-sheet was filed against Vasudev only, the husband of Smt. Laccho. The C.I.D. recorded the statements of other eye-witnesses, who gave a different story about the incident and put the blame on Vasudev, husband of the deceased. A negative report was filed against Jagmohan. 7. After filing the negative report against Jagmohan, the petitioner submitted a protest petition before the learned Magistrate, but the same was rejected without making any inquiry. Then, the petitioner filed a complaint, which too was dismissed by the learned Magistrate on the ground that the protest petition already stood dismissed, which was filed by the petitioner. Any how, Vasudev was prosecuted under Section 302, I.P.C. in the Court of Sessions Judge, Bharatpur. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted him, as the so called eye-witnesses did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile. Any how, Vasudev was prosecuted under Section 302, I.P.C. in the Court of Sessions Judge, Bharatpur. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted him, as the so called eye-witnesses did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile. While acquitting Vasudev vide judgment dated 5.4.89, a finding was recorded that Smt. Laccho had met a homicidal death from gun shot injury, and the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause her death. 8. As stated earlier, the police filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code. Though, the petitioner has also challenged a number of other orders passed by various courts on the protest petition and complaint etc., but during the course of arguments, the learned counsel limited his prayer to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioner under section 203, Indian Penal Code. 9. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the information given by the petitioner about the commission of the offence under section 302, Indian Penal Code to police was false or frivolous. He argued that the police, after investigation, had filed a challan against Vasudev under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, though no charge sheet was filed against Jagmohan, against whom the petitioner had stated in the Parcha Bayan, that he caused the death of Smt. Laccho. It is note-worthy that while acquitting Vasudev, the learned Sessions Judge has recorded a definite finding that Smt. Laccho had died on account of gun shot injury, as the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has merit that the information given by the petitioner with regard to the commission of the offence under section 302, Indian Penal Code was not false, though the author of the injury to the deceased was named a different person than the person against whom the police submitted a charge-sheet. But, when the information regarding the commission of the offence was not false, then it cannot be said that any offence under Section 203, Indian Penal Code is prima facie made out against the petitioner. But, when the information regarding the commission of the offence was not false, then it cannot be said that any offence under Section 203, Indian Penal Code is prima facie made out against the petitioner. Section 203, Indian Penal Code reads as under "203-Giving false information respecting an offence committed- whoever knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed gives any information respecting that offence which he knows or believes to be false, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine, or with both. Explanation-In Sections 201 & 202 and in this section the word " Offence" includes any act committed at any place out of India, which, if committed in India; would be punishable under any of the following sections, namely, 302, 304, 382, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399,402,435,449,450,457,458, 459 and 460." 10. A bare perusal of the above section shows that the offence under Section 203, Indian Penal Code relates to giving a false information about the commission of the offence, though no such offence is committed. The petitioner had given information about the murder of Smt. Laccho, i.e., the commission of the offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, and so far as this information is concerned, it was not false. To justify a conviction for giving a false information with respect to an offence under this section, it must be proved not only that the person charged by (sic) reason to believe that an offence had been committed, but that the offence has been actually committed, and that the accused knew or had reason to believe that it had been so committed. The most essential for an offence under this section, is the giving of information known to the giver to be false. The information contemplated under this section must be proved to be false to the knowledge of the accused. In the instant case, there is no material on record to show that the petitioner had given a false information respecting the offence, which he knew or believed to be false. In the instant case, after the challan was filed, the petitioner could be prosecuted under Section 211, Indian Penal Code, if the learned Sessions Judge thought it proper to file a complaint against him. In the instant case, after the challan was filed, the petitioner could be prosecuted under Section 211, Indian Penal Code, if the learned Sessions Judge thought it proper to file a complaint against him. No such complaint was filed against the petitioner for the offence under section 211, Indian Penal Code. 11. Taking into consideration, all the facts and circumstances, the prosecution of the petitioner under section 203, Indian Penal Code is not justified. 12. Consequently, I allow this petition and quash the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 24/89 pending against the petitioner in the Court of the Addl. Munsif & Judicial Magistrate(1), Bharatpur under Section 203, IPC.Petition allowed. *******