ORDER: Aggrieved by the order of refusal to discharge the petitioner in respect of an offence under Sec. 211, I.P.C. in S.C. No. 131 of 1998 before the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, Nagai Mugan, the petitioner herein, has filed this revision. 2. The case of the prosecution against the petitioner is that he gave a false complaint to the Commissioner of Police against one Gopal, the Editor of “Nakkeeran” in respect of an accident, wherein, one Sivasubramaniam, a reporter working under him, sustained injuries, as the said Gopal, Editor, conspired to eliminate the said Sivasubramaniam, and consequently the said accident took place, and thereby committed an offence under Sec. 211, I.P.C. 3. While assailing the order impugned, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the ingredients of Sec. 211, I.P.C. are not made out, especially when the mere act of giving a complaint to the Commissioner of Police would not amount to institution of the criminal proceedings, as contemplated under Sec. 211, I.P.C. and as such, the order of the trial Court, refusing to discharge the petitioner, is liable to be set aside and the petitioner is entitled to be discharged. 4. Mr.E. Raja, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, while refuting the said contention, would justify the reasonings given in the impugned order. 5. Mr.C.M. Gunasekaran, learned counsel for the respondent, while refuting the said application, would justify the reasonings given in the impugned order. 6. I have heard the counsel for the parties, considered the statements and perused the records. 7. Before deciding the issue in question, it will be appropriate to refer to the facts of the case. 8. Nagai Mugan, the petitioner herein, is the Editor of a Tamil Magazine viz., “Dravidan Veeram”. On 5.6.1996, the petitioner, who claims himself to be the Joint Secretary of “Thani Thamizhar Kazhagam” and the Editor of “Dravidan Veeram”, sent a petition to the Commissioner of Police, stating that the act of Mr.Gopal, Editor, “Nakkeeran”, having met the murderer-cum-smuggler Veerappan and recorded a video cassette portraying the meeting, is an offence, as he has no authority to meet the said Veerappan gang. 9. 9. Again, on 13.6.1996, he sent a petition to the Commissioner of Police, stating that one Sivasubramaniam, the reporter of Nakkeeran has been admitted in the Vijaya Health Centre, Madras., due to the injuries stated to have been sustained in the accident, and he suspected a foul play in the said incident, as he understood that the incident took place due to quarrel between the said reporter and editor, Gopal and requested to take action against the culprits by making investigation for the offence under Sec. 307, I.P.C. 10. On 20.6.1996, the said Gopal, Editor of Nakkeeran, gave a complaint to the Commissioner of Police, Egmore, alleging that the complaint given by the petitioner on 13.6.1996 was a false one and requested to take action against the petitioner, Nagai Mugan, for the offence under Sec. 211, I.P.C. 11. On receipt of the said complaint, one Rajendran, Assistant Commissioner of Police (Law & Order) Guindy, filed a petition before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai-8, on the same day, requesting permission for investigation under Sec. 155(2), Crl.P.C. as the said case involved a non-cognizable offence. Accordingly, on the same day, the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate granted permission for investigation. Then the case was registered by one Backiya Muthu, the Inspector of Police, J-3, Guindy Police Station on 21.6.1996, for the offence under Sec. 211, I.P.C. 12. After the investigation was over, the final report has been filed against the petitioner for the offence under Sec. 211, I.P.C. and the same was taken on file in C.C.No. 6751 of 1996 by the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate Chennai. Before the said Court, the petitioner filed a discharge petition in Crl.M.P. No. 2225 of 1997 and the same was dismissed on 3.2.1998. 13. Subsequently, as the accusation made in the charge sheet would attract Sub-clause (2) of Sec. 211, I.P.C, which is triable by the Sessions Court the same was committed to the Sessions Court on 31.3.1998. Accordingly, after committal, the case was taken on file by the Sessions Court in S.C.No. 131 of 1998. 14. At that stage, the petitioner filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.6767 of 1998 on the ground that the accusation in the charge sheet would not attract Sec. 211, I.P.C. As it was dismissed by order dated 14.6.2001, the present revision has been filed before this Court. 15. 14. At that stage, the petitioner filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.6767 of 1998 on the ground that the accusation in the charge sheet would not attract Sec. 211, I.P.C. As it was dismissed by order dated 14.6.2001, the present revision has been filed before this Court. 15. The main contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the alleged false complaint in question has been given to the Commissioner of Police by the petitioner on 13.6.1996 and the same could not be termed to be the institution of criminal proceedings, as contemplated under Sec. 211, I.P.C. Therefore, the offence under Sec. 211, I.P.C, has not been made out. 16. This contention, in my view, would lack substance for the reason that Sec. 211, I.P.C. would not only include the institution of criminal proceedings, but also involve making or instituting false charges. 17. In this case, it is alleged in the charge sheet that the petitioner- accused made false charges against Gopal, Editor, “Nakkeeran” to the Commissioner of Police, and therefore, even though it cannot be said that there was institution of any criminal proceedings as the same has not been filed in Court for initiating any criminal proceedings, the said act can be termed to be making a false charge. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not tenable. 18. However, on going through the case diary and the lower Court records, it is seen that the main ingredient of Sec. 211, I.P.C. is absent, and on that account, the proceedings under Sec. 211, I.P.C. against the petitioner is liable to be held as invalid, and as such, the petitioner is liable to be discharged. 19. The following circumstances would support my conclusion arrived, as mentioned above. 20. Sec. 211, I.P.C. would provide as follows: “False charge of offence made with intent to injure: Whoever, with intent to cause, injury to any person, institutes or causes to be instituted any criminal proceeding against the 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 for a term which may be extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.” 21. A reading of the above section would indicate that there are two main ingredients: (i) Instituting or making a false charge against any person for having committed an offence; and (ii) Knowing that there is no just or lawful ground for making such a charge against that person. 22. As indicated above, there may be materials in this case to satisfy the first ingredient, namely, making the charges against a person for having committed an offence, which may be found to be false. But with regard to the second ingredient, namely, knowledge as to the falsity, there is no material to satisfy the same. 23. The alleged false complaint dated 13.6.1996 given by the petitioner to the Commissioner of Police is as follows: The Commissioner of Police Greater Madras Madras-8. Dear Sir, In continuation of my previous complaint against Mr.R. Rajagopal, alias R.R. Gopal of Nakkeeran Magazine, I am to complain again that Mr. Sivasubramanian, Reporter, who interviewed Sandalwood Veerappan has been admitted in Vijaya Health Centre, Madras-26 with injury in his neck and knee yesterday. I suspect some foulplay in this incident and I am unable to believe that it is an accident. I understand that Nakkeeran Gopal has received huge amount from Veerappan promising general amnesty and there was a quarrel between the reporter and Editor on sharing the amount as well as publicity. Hence, I request you to register a case under 307 and investigate to nab the culprits. Thanking you, Yours faithfully Sd/- xxx“. 24. The reading of the above complaint would show that he suspected some foul play in the incident in which the said Sivasubramaniam sustained injuries. He also suspected that the said accident had taken place due to the quarrel between the reporter and editor on sharing the amount given by Veerappan and for publicity. 25. The reading of the complaint would reveal that the petitioner entertained a suspicion in the incident as a foul play. Admittedly, this complaint had not been registered by the police. 26. The original complaint, which is available in the lower Court records, would show that the Intelligence Section and the Office of the Commissioner of Police received it on 13.6.1996 at about 4.15 p.m. and on 20.6.1996, the said complaint was sent to the Assistant Commissioner (Law & Order) Guindy, for action. 26. The original complaint, which is available in the lower Court records, would show that the Intelligence Section and the Office of the Commissioner of Police received it on 13.6.1996 at about 4.15 p.m. and on 20.6.1996, the said complaint was sent to the Assistant Commissioner (Law & Order) Guindy, for action. But the statement of the witnesses under Sec. 161 and the documents filed along with the final report do not show the details about the enquiry conducted in the said complaint and the nature of the conclusion arrived at. 27. On the same day, i.e., on 20.6.1996, Gopal, the Editor of”Nakkeeran“, gave a complaint against the petitioner under Sec. 211, I.P.C. to the Commissioner of Police, which was received by the office of the Commissioner of Police, and immediately, it was sent to the Assistant Commissioner (Law & Order) Guindy. He filed an affidavit before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on the same day and obtained permission under Sec. 255(2), Crl.P.C., for registration and investigation of the case, i.e., on 20.6.1996 itself. 28. Accordingly, the first information report was registered on 21.6.1996 at 12.00 noon by the Inspector of Police (Law & Order), J-3 Police Station, Guindy. Ultimately the charge sheet was initially filed, before the IX Metropolitan Magistrate against the petitioner for the offence under Sec. 211, I.P.C. on 17.7.1996, which was taken on file in C.C.No.3977 of 1996. 29. From the final report, it is seen that 16 witnesses are cited as prosecution witnesses. The statements of these witnesses would clearly show that the injuries sustained by Sivasubramaniam were due to the accident which took place in Ulundurpet, and Editor Gopal only gave immediate helping hand by making arrangements for admitting the said Sivasubramaniam, in the hospital at Madras. 30. From this, it is clear that the complaint given by the petitioner on 13.6.1996, alleging foul play in the accident, would not contain the real facts. However, as noted above, unless there are materials to show that the said complaint was given on 13.6.1996 by the petitioner knowing that there was no just or lawful ground for such false charge, there cannot be any proceedings against the person concerned, under Sec. 211, I.P.C. 31. In this case, all the witnesses would speak about the investigation conducted on the complaint by Editor Rajagopal relating to the accident, in which, Sivasubramaniam sustained injuries. In this case, all the witnesses would speak about the investigation conducted on the complaint by Editor Rajagopal relating to the accident, in which, Sivasubramaniam sustained injuries. There are no materials to show as to how the investigating officer had come to the conclusion that the complaint given by the petitioner on 13.6.1996 was given with the knowledge that the accusation in the said complaint was false. 32. Out of 16 witnesses, one Nageswara Rao, witness No. 12, Assistant, Intelligence Section, City Police Office, Madras alone, would refer about the investigation, which was conducted on the complaint given by the petitioner on 13.6,1996, as follows: ”Statement of Thiru Nageswara Rao, Assistant, Intelligence Section, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Madras-8 33. The above statement would make it clear that he conducted a secret enquiry over the complaint given by the petitioner on 13.6.1996 and then sent the said complaint to the Inspector of Police, Guindy. What was the result in the secret enquiry on the complaint given by the petitioner was not mentioned in the said statement. Furthermore, admittedly, the petitioner was never examined either by witness No. 12, Nageswara Rao, the Assistant of the intelligence section nor was examined by the investigating officer in this case. 34. Under those circumstances, the evidence relating to the knowledge as to the accusation in the complaint regarding the falsity of the same is completely missing. 35. It is settled laws laid down in Ahmed Kutty v. State of Kerala, (1963) 1 Crl.L.J. 597: A.I.R. 1963 Ker. 152 and in V. Balaraman v. Venkatadri Naidu and others, 1971 L.W. (Crl) 288, that mere statement of facts or communication of suspection cannot amount to making a false charge within the meaning of Sec. 211, I.P.C. The main ingredient in the offence, which the prosecution is bound to prove, is that the charge was wilfully false to the knowledge of the marker of the charge. If that proof of knowledge is not insisted upon, no person would feel it safe to convey information to the police about the suspicion of commission of any offence. 36. As noted above, the petitioner did not assert that one particular individual had committed the offence. On the other hand, he had just passed on the information to the Commissioner of Police on suspicion, to enable the police to investigate and find out the real truth and take necessary action. 36. As noted above, the petitioner did not assert that one particular individual had committed the offence. On the other hand, he had just passed on the information to the Commissioner of Police on suspicion, to enable the police to investigate and find out the real truth and take necessary action. Criminal administration would come to a stand-still if every expression of suspicion is penalised when it turns out to be wrong. The police agency is there to enquire into reported offences. If the case is proved, they may file a charge sheet and if it is not proved, they may discard the same. 37. As noted above, the mere proof of falsity of the complaint or the failure to prove its truth is not enough. In this case, the prosecution has collected the materials to show that the incident in which Sivasubramaniam sustained injuries was not a set up one, and it was due to the accident. But that, by itself may not be sufficient to hold that the petitioner gave the complaint with the knowledge that it is a false complaint, particularly when he expressed only suspicion over the said accident or incident, through his complaint. 38. In view of what is stated above, the proceed ings under Sec. 211, I.P.C. cannot be proceeded with as against the petitioner, and consequently, the petitioner is liable to be discharged and he is accordingly discharged. 39. The revision is allowed. Consequently, Crl.M.P.No. 6379 of 2001 is closed.