Order: The learned Assistant Judge of Tuticorin has made this reference to this Court under sections 215, 438 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the committal of the accused in P.R.C. No. 8 of 1963, for an offence under section 211, Indian Penal Code. Notice of this Reference was given to the interested parties but there was no appearance on their behalf in this Court. I heard the learned Public Prosecutor, who, however, does not support the Reference. One Mariamma, wife of Sannasi of Ettayapuram, died on 4th July, 1962. under suspicious circumstances. Charman Nadar, a prominent man of the locality, made a complaint to the Police on 4th July, 1962, charging Sannasi and others with the offence of murder. The Police investigated the complaint and found if to be false. Then the Police filed a complaint against Charman Nadar before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, on 1st November, 1962, for an offence under section 211, Indian Penal Code. This was transferred to the Sub-Magistrate of Koilpatti who took it on his file as P.R.C. No. 37 of 1962 on 1st December, 1962. Charman Nadar, the accused, was provided with a copy of this complaint on 14th December, 1962. On 18th December, 1962, Charman Nadar preferred a “protest petition” before the Sub-Magistrate, Koilpatti, which was taken up by him on his file and numbered as P.R.C. No. 29 of 1962. He dismissed P.R.C. No. 29 of 1962 under section 203, Criminal Procedure Code, on 31st December, 1962. On the same day he passed orders in P.R.C. No. 37 of 1962 discharging the accused therein. This, latter order of discharge was revised by the learned District Magistrate, Tuticorin, who set aside the order of discharge and remanded the case to the file of the Sub-Magistrate, for further enquiry. This Sub-Magistrate continued the enquiry and committed the accused to take his trial in the Court of Session for an offence under section 211, Indian Penal Code. This case came up before the Assistant Sessions Judge, Tuticorin, for trial. It was in the course of that trial that the learned Assistant Sessions Judge has made the present Reference for quashing committal. This case came up before the Assistant Sessions Judge, Tuticorin, for trial. It was in the course of that trial that the learned Assistant Sessions Judge has made the present Reference for quashing committal. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, in the course of his order, has referred to several decisions, both of this Court as well as other High Courts and he has also relied upon the dictum laid down by Jackson, J., in Murugan v. Rami Naidu1. Under section 215, Criminal Procedure Code, this Court can quash a committal made by the Magistrate only on a point of law. The point of law mentioned by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge is that the complaint in the present case is hit by section 195 (1) (b), Code of Criminal Procedure, as it was filed without the sanction of the Court before which Charman Nadar had filed the “protest petition,” in which the merits of the complaint filed by him were being enquired into for determining whether actually a case of murder had been made out or not. According to the accused Charman Nadar, the present complaint for an offence under section 211. Indian Penal Code, required the sanction of the Court before which P.R.C. No. 39 of 1962 was pending and in the absence of such a sanction, the present prosecution is invalid in law. Taking up first, Murugan v. Rami Naidu1, the point to note is that in that case the Police had made a report that a complaint made about an offence of theft was false and the Magistrate was asked to strike-off the case from his file. The complainant being apprised of the fact, he filed a complaint before the Sub-Magistrate. The Magistrate allowed the prayer of the Police to strike-off the case from his file but passed no further orders on the complaint filed by the complainant. It was during the pendency of this complaint before the Magistrate that the complainant was charged with having falsely accused certain persons with the offence of theft before the Village Headman, an offence punishable under section 211, Indian Penal Code. It was during the pendency of this complaint before the Magistrate that the complainant was charged with having falsely accused certain persons with the offence of theft before the Village Headman, an offence punishable under section 211, Indian Penal Code. The learned Judge, Jackson, J., observed that it would be an almost extraordinary result if while the Magistrate was still engaged in trying a complaint and possibly inclined to believe the complainant, the complainant could himself be put into the dock in another proceedings on the allegation that he had preferred a false charge to the Police. The sequence of dates thus referred to is important in the context of the sanction under section 195 (1) (b), Criminal Procedure Code. In In re Parameswaran Nambudri2, decided by a Bench of this Court, Ayling, J., observed: “It is of course necessary that the ‘proceeding in any Court’ referred to in the clause should be actually instituted before the Criminal Court is asked to take cognizance of the offence. If it is not, there is nothing in section 195 to prevent the Court from taking cognizance of the case. And once the Court has lawfully taken cognizance of the case, its jurisdiction is not affected by the subsequent coming into existence of a circumstance which would have barred its jurisdiction, if it had existed at the time of institution.” Similarly, in Jamini Kanta v. Babanath Jaisi3, the Police reported a case to be a false one and prayed for prosecution of the accused under section 211, Indian Penal Code. After complaint of the Police was filed and when the accused was called upon to show cause against prosecution, the accused filed a “narazi petition” or revision petition in which the merits of the case were enquired into. In such a context, the Court observed that there should be no doubt that the effect of the decision in Brown v. Ananda Lal4, was that if the complainant, after the Police had submitted a final report, had filed a complaint before the Magstistrate, sanction of that Magistrate would be necessary before he could be put upon his trial. In such a context, the Court observed that there should be no doubt that the effect of the decision in Brown v. Ananda Lal4, was that if the complainant, after the Police had submitted a final report, had filed a complaint before the Magstistrate, sanction of that Magistrate would be necessary before he could be put upon his trial. The Patna High Court in Permanand Brahmachari v. Emperor5, observed: “It is impossible to hold that when a Magistrate has taken cognizance of a complaint anything that can subsequently happen will suffice or anything in section 195 (1)(b) can operate to deprive him of jurisdiction to proceed thereon in accordance with law.” The above decisions make it clear that where the Magistrate had already taken cognizance of the complaint under section 211, Indian Penal Code, and after that stage if the accused moves the Court in a revision petition for enquiring into the truth of this complaint, there will be no question of the former complaint being hit by section 195 (1) (b), Criminal Procedure Code and no sanction of the Court which has taken cognizance of the revision petition will be necessary to validate the further proceedings under the earlier complaint. I therefore consider that there is no case made out for quashing the committal in this case. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge will proceed with the trial of the case and dispose of it according to law. K.S. ------ Reference rejected.