JUDGMENT 1. This petition was filed by the accused in Crime No. 577/2006 of the Kasaragod Police Station for offence under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) originally seeking an order to quash Annexure D First Information Report. Pending proceedings, police completed the investigation and submitted Annexure E charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kasaragod, alleging the same offence. Cognizance was taken by the learned magistrate and the case was filed as C.C. 1227/2006. Thereupon, the petitioner amended this petition seeking an order to quash Annexure E charge sheet also. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kasaragod as CMP 157/2006 against one Narayanan Nair, his son and wife, alleging offences under Sections 447, 427 and 506 r/w Section 34 IPC. The learned magistrate forwarded the same to the Station House Officer, Kasaragod under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC). Upon receipt of the same, the Station House Officer, Kasaragod, registered a case as Crime No. 25/2006 for the above said offence for which Annexure A First Information Report was preferred. After investigation, the Station House Officer arrived at a conclusion that the allegations in the complaint are false. Accordingly, Annexure B Final Refer Report was filed before the magistrate. Thereupon, it appears that the Station House Officer had obtained some sanction from his superior officers and a case was suo motu registered as Crime No. 577/2006 alleging offence under Section 211 IPC by Annexure D FIR and later Annexure E Final Report was filed. Protesting against Annexure B report referring the case as false, the petitioner filed a protest complaint before the magistrate, copy of which is produced as Annexure C. The learned magistrate took cognizance on Annexure C complaint for the earlier mentioned offences and the case was filed as C.C. 1106/2006. 3. The plea of the petitioner is bi-fold. One is that since the offence alleged in Annexure D and E are under Section 211 IPC., the learned magistrate should not have taken cognizance except upon a complaint in writing by a court or by such officers of the court. 3. The plea of the petitioner is bi-fold. One is that since the offence alleged in Annexure D and E are under Section 211 IPC., the learned magistrate should not have taken cognizance except upon a complaint in writing by a court or by such officers of the court. The second ground is that since the learned magistrate had taken cognizance on Annexure C protest complaint on the same set of allegation and the accused therein are facing prosecution, the prosecution for offence under Section 211 IPC as if the petitioner had caused to institute Annexure A criminal proceedings with intention to cause injury or falsely charged any person is not sustainable because the merit of the allegations is the subject matter in C.C.1106/2006. 4. Having heard either side and perusing the records, I find merit in both the arguments because admittedly, offence under Section 211 IPC is non cognizable. The Station House Officer, Kasaragod cannot take cognizance for offence under Section 211 IPC without the order of the magistrate in view of the specific bar under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. which stipulates that no police officer shall investigate a non cognizable case without the order of the magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial. Therefore, the registering of Annexure D FIR itself is without authority. The second reason is that there is a bar under Section 195 of the code of Criminal Procedure, which reads as follows: 195. Therefore, the registering of Annexure D FIR itself is without authority. The second reason is that there is a bar under Section 195 of the code of Criminal Procedure, which reads 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 sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or (ii) of any abetment of, attempt to commit, such offence, or (iii) 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 sections 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 section 463, or punishable under section 471, section 475 or section 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 in 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 by such officer of the Court as that Court may authorise in writing in this behalf, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate. xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxx" 5. The above provision would show that except on a complaint in writing by a court or by such officer of the court as authorised in writing or of some other court to which that court is subordinate, no court shall take cognizance alleging offence under Section 211 IPC and other offence mentioned in Clause (i) to (iii) to sub clause (a) and Clauses (i) to (iii) to sub clause (b) to Section 195 Cr.P.C. Therefore, on that reason itself, Annexure D and Annexure E are not legally sustainable and liable to be interfered with. 6. 6. It is also not disputed that upon Annexure C complaint, the magistrate had taken cognizance. Though the process issued is not produced before this Court to show that the magistrate has taken cognizance on Annxure C, the learned counsel for the petitioner produced a copy of the order dated 7.9.2009 in Crl. M.C. 1111/2008 on the file of this Court. Going by the said order, it can be seen that the first accused assailed Annexure C complaint and consequent proceedings thereon under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The prayer of the first accused was declined by this Court. Therefore, the allegations in Annexure D and Annexure E are the subject matter in Annexure C complaint and it is pending trial. Till the trial is over, it couldn't be said that the allegations are false. Therefore, it cannot be said that the allegations in Annexure A are false so as to sustain a complaint for prosecution under Section 211 IPC. The registering of the FIR, investigation thereon and the Final Report are not sustainable. The petitioner shall succeed. In the result, this petition is allowed. Annexure D FIR and E Final Report and all consequent proceedings thereon would stand quashed.