Judgment Surinder Sarup, J. 1. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 1-5-1989, passed by the Additional CJ.M. Jamshedpur, in JC/1 Case No. 59 of 1989, taking cognizance of an offence wider Secs. 211 and 193, I.P.C against the petitioners. 2. Briefly, the facts are that a case under Secs. 448and 323, I.P.C. was registered by the police against opposite party No.2, Mahendra Mishra and other accused, in which petitioner No.1 Chhotu Ojha, was the informant and Petitioner No.2 Srikant Ojha, was a witness. In that case, after investigation and submission of charge-sheet by the police the trial of the accused persons including the opposite party No.1 was held and ultimately they were acquitted by the trial court i.e., the judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur, vide judgment dated 3-6-1987. 3. On 13-10-1987, opposite party No. 2 filed a petition before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur with a prayer that a regular complaint may be initiated against the petitioners under Sec. 195, Cr. P.C for having committed the offence punishable under Secs. 211 and 193, I.P.C and that they may be summoned to face trial. The said petition of opposite party No.2 was on the ground that he along with other accused in the previous case had been acquitted by the trial court while giving a finding that the case appears to be false. 4. The Court of the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur by an order dated 28-6-1988, directed that the record of the present case be sent to the Court of the Additional C.J.M. Jamshedpur, who was the competent court in the matter. Thereafter the latter court by an order dated 30-1-1989, directed to convert the Misc Case of opposite party No.2 as a regular complaint case. It is in pursuance of the said order, elated 30-1-1989 that the subsequent order taking cognizance against the petitioners for the alleged offence under Secs. 211/193, IPC, was passed. Hence the present application. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners and the A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State had been heard. No one has appeared on behalf of opposite party No.2 who is stated to be represented by a counsel, namely, Sri. S. D. Misra, Advocate. On behalf of the petitioner, their learned counsel has submitted that the impugned order is illegal as the same has been passed in contravention of Secs. No one has appeared on behalf of opposite party No.2 who is stated to be represented by a counsel, namely, Sri. S. D. Misra, Advocate. On behalf of the petitioner, their learned counsel has submitted that the impugned order is illegal as the same has been passed in contravention of Secs. 195(1)(b)(i) and 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In order to appreciate this argument, it would be proper to reproduce the provisions of Secs. 195 and 340 ibid which are as follows 195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence. (1) No court shall take cognizance (a) (i) of any offence punishable under Secs. 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (5 of 1860). Or (ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit such offence, or (i) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence. except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate; (b) (i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the . Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely, Secs. 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 (ii) of any offence described in Sec. 463, or punishable under Sec. 471, Sec. 475 or Sec. 476, of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding any Court, or (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit or the abetment of, any offence specified in sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (ii), except on the complaint in writing of that Court, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate. (2) Where a complaint has been made by a public servant under clause (a) of Sub-sec. (2) Where a complaint has been made by a public servant under clause (a) of Sub-sec. (1) any authority to which he is administratively subordinate may order the withdrawal of the complaint and send a copy of such order to the Court; and upon its receipt by the Court, no further proceedings shall be taken on the complaint: Provided that no such withdrawal shall be ordered if the trial in the Court of first instance has been concluded. (3) In clause (b) of Sub-sec. (1), the term "court" means a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court, and includes a tribunal constituted by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act if declared by that Act to be a Court for the purpose of this section. (4) For the purposes of clause (b) of sub section (1), a Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Court to which appeals, ordinarily lie from the appeal able decrees sentences of such former Court, be in the case of a Civil court from whose decrees no appeal ordinarily lies, to the principal Court having ordinary original civil jurisdiction within whose local jurisdiction Civil Court is situate: Provided that: (a) where appeals lie to more than one Court, the Appellate Court of inferior jurisdiction shall be the Court to which such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate; (b) where appeals lie to a Civil and also to a Revenue Court such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Civil or Revenue Court according to the nature of the case or proceeding in connection with which the offence is alleged to have been committed. 340. Procedure in cases mentioned in Sec. 195.- (1) When, upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into an offence referred to in clause (b) of Sub-sec. 340. Procedure in cases mentioned in Sec. 195.- (1) When, upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into an offence referred to in clause (b) of Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or, as case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, such Court, may after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary : (a) record a finding to that effect; (b) make a complaint thereof in writing; (c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction; (d) take sufficient security for the appearance of the accused before such Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non- bailable and the Court thinks it necessary so to do, send the accused in custody to such Magistrate; and (e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate. (2) The power conferred on a Court by Sub-sec. (1) in respect of an offence may, in any case where the Court has neither made a complaint under Sub-sec. (1) in respect of that offence nor rejected an application for the making of such complaint, be exercised, by the Court to which such former Court is subordinate within the meaning of Sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 195. (3) A complaint made under this section shall be signed;- (a) where the Court making the complaint is a High Court, by such officer of the Court as the Court may appoint; (b) in any other case, by the Presiding Officer of the Court. (4) In this section, "Court" has the same meaning as in Sec. 195. 6. It clear from a combined reading of the aforesaid provisions that cognizance of an offence under Secs. 193/211, I.P.C. can only be taken on the complaint in writing of the Court when such offence is alleged to have committed in any proceeding in the said Court. This is clear from a bare reading of Sec. 195(1)(b)(i), Cr. P.C. Sec. 340, Cr. P.C. relates to the procedure to be adopted in cases mentioned in Sec. 195, Cr. P. C. Sub-sec. This is clear from a bare reading of Sec. 195(1)(b)(i), Cr. P.C. Sec. 340, Cr. P.C. relates to the procedure to be adopted in cases mentioned in Sec. 195, Cr. P. C. Sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 34O, Clause (b) provides that a complaint under this Section shall be signed by the Presiding Officer of the Court and Sub-sec. (4) thereof says that "Court" has the same meaning as in Sec. 195. 7. It is thus apparent that in a case of this type, the complaint has to be made in writing by the Court which was originally in seisin of the matter in which the alleged offence under Sec. 195 211, I.P.C. is alleged to have been committed by any person, and such a complaint has to be signed by the Presiding Officer of that Court. It is also apparent that in case of any contingency resulting in the absence of the Presiding Officer of the Court, where the alleged offence under Secs. 193/211, I.P.C. has been committed. Then the complaint may be made in writing and under the signature of some other Court which is superior to that Court. It is clear from the provision of Sec. 195 (l)(b)(i) and Sec. 340(2) Cr. P. C. 8. Applying the above interpretation of the relevant provisions to the facts of the present case, it will be seen that opposite party No.2 along with other accused had been acquitted by the judgment dated 3-6-1987 from the court of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur, whose Presiding Officer at that time was Smt. S. Tigga. Therefore, the petition under Sec. 195 (1)(i), Cr. P. C. of opposite party No.2 for lodging the complaint against the petitioner could only be dealt with either by that court or some other Court to which that Court is subordinate. As discussed above, the petition (Annexure-I) of opposite party NO.2 against the petitioners was filed in the Court of the Sub divisional Judicial - Magistrate, Jamshedpur, which by its order dated 28-6-1988 directed it to be sent to the Court of the Additional C. J. M.-, Jamshedpur. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Additional C. J. M. Jamshedpur not being a superior Court as prescribed by Sec. 195(4), Cr. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Additional C. J. M. Jamshedpur not being a superior Court as prescribed by Sec. 195(4), Cr. P. C. to the Court of Smt. S. Tigga, the then Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, who acquitted opposite party No.2 and other accused, had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order dated 15-1989, taking cognizance of the offence under Sec. 193/211, I.P.C. against the petitioners. Moreover cognizance could only be taken on a complaint made in writing and signed by the Presiding Officer of the Court which had conducted the trial against opposite party NO.2 resulting in his acquittal or by the successor Presiding Officer. 9. The matter can be looked at from another angle also. The trial of opposite party No. 2 along with other accused was concluded on 36-1987 resulting in their acquittal for the alleged offence under Secs. 448/323, I.P.C. Certified copy of the judgment, dated 3-6-1987 of the trial court is on the record of this case and a perusal of the same shows that the accused in that case were acquitted on the grounds that the case against them appeared to be false and that the main witnesses of the prosecution were inconsistent in their depositions. In view of these findings the prosecution of opposite party No.2 and other accused in that case cannot be considered as maliciously false. Moreover, the case has a long history and no useful purpose will be served in continuing the proceedings. Thus it is a fit case for exercising the inherent powers of this Court to secure ends of justice. 10. For the reasons recorded above, this application is allowed and the impugned order gated 1-5-1989, passed by the Additional C.J-M., Jamshedpur is hereby quashed.