ORDER : This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the FIR registered as Crime No.876/2014, a copy of which is appended with this petition as Annexure A1. 2. The petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.876/2014. Respondent No.2 has been entrusted with the task of investigation of a case based on Crime No.876/2014. A crime was registered initially, for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 376(1), 376(2)(e) of the Indian Penal Code. The first informant was one Smt.Sheeja. The allegations were levelled by her against one Dr.Suresh Ezhuthachan that he has committed the offences punishable under Sections 354, 376(1), 376(2)(e) of the Indian Penal Code, against her. 3. Investigation was proceeded with in Crime No.876/2014 as registered originally by the Thrissur Town East Police Station. The investigating officer had arrived at a finding that the allegations levelled by Smt.Sheeja, the defacto complainant in the FIS, which formed the basis for the registration of the FIR are false ones. Accordingly, a report as Annexure A2 was filed by respondent No.2 under Section 167 Cr.P.C. before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court No.1, Thrissur. The report incorporates the revelation of the investigating officer from the investigation conducted by him that the petitioner and another accused have caused the defacto complainant to give a false FIS against Dr.Suresh Ezhuthachan, R/O.Aswani Hospital, Thrissur, before respondent No.2 and thereby got the crime in question registered against him. Accordingly, a report was filed before the Judicial First Class Court No.1, Thrissur under Section 167 Cr.P.C for removing the offences originally incorporated in Annexure A1 and to obtain permission to continue investigation by incorporating offences punishable under Sections 195, 109 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) and 117(d) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 (for short 'the Act, 2011') against the petitioner and another accused. 4. Aggrieved by the action of respondent No.2 that the first accused has approached this Court in the captioned proceedings seeking to quash the same. The allegations raised against the petitioner was that he had instigated the defacto complainant to give false evidence with an intention to procure conviction of Dr.Suresh Ezhuthachan for offences liable to be punished with imprisonment for life or imprisonment. 5. Sri.Anoop C.C., the learned counsel, advanced arguments on behalf of the petitioner. The allegations raised against the petitioner was that he had instigated the defacto complainant to give false evidence with an intention to procure conviction of Dr.Suresh Ezhuthachan for offences liable to be punished with imprisonment for life or imprisonment. 5. Sri.Anoop C.C., the learned counsel, advanced arguments on behalf of the petitioner. Vide order of this court dated 8.12.2017 in Crl.M.A. No.1399/2016, the de facto complainant was brought on record in the proceedings on hand. 6. Sri.S.Manu, the learned counsel, representing the de facto complainant, Smt.Rehna N.S., the learned Public Prosecutor representing respondents 1 to 3 were heard elaborately on their rival contentions. 7. Sri.Anoop C.C., the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a report under Section 167 Cr.P.C was filed by respondent No.2 proposing to conduct investigation against the petitioner as accused No.1 so as to prosecute him for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 195, 109 read with Section 34 IPC and 117(d) of the Act, 2011 without any basis. According to him, the action of respondent No.2 can only be treated as sheer abuse of the authority. The contention secondly advanced by the learned counsel was that a person is said to give false evidence under Section 191 IPC only when he makes any statement, which is false, which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, when he is legally bound by an oath or by an expressed provision of law to state the truth or being bound by law to make a declaration upon any subject. According to the learned counsel, falsity of allegations in the first information statement cannot be the basis for launching a prosecution against the petitioner for the offence under Section 191 IPC. The learned counsel placed reliance on Vittappan v. State [1987 (2) KLT, 174] to rest the above contention. The contention thirdly advanced was that the ingredients constituting the offence under Section 109 IPC are not attracted from the allegations. The contention fourthly advanced by the learned counsel was that the offence under Section 117 (d) of the Act, 2011, also will not be attracted, in the absence of any allegation having been made by respondent No.2 that the petitioner had given any statement before a Police Officer. 8. The contention fourthly advanced by the learned counsel was that the offence under Section 117 (d) of the Act, 2011, also will not be attracted, in the absence of any allegation having been made by respondent No.2 that the petitioner had given any statement before a Police Officer. 8. Raising contentions as above, the learned counsel canvassed for quashing the FIR appended with this proceedings on hand as Annexure A1. 9. Sri.S.Manu, the learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant has submitted that the allegations in Annexure A1 FIR would satisfactorily meet with the ingredients constituting the offences as described under Sections 195, 109 read with Section 34 IPC and 117(d) of the Act, 2011. According to him, based on the First Information Statement of Mrs.Sheeja before respondent No.2 that the Annexure A1 crime was originally registered and the investigation was pursued with and when that culminated in a finding that the allegations levelled in the FIS are false ones, a report under Section 167 Cr.P.C was filed before the court by respondent No.2. It was revealed to respondent No.2 during the course of investigation that Smt.Sheeja was made to lodge the FIS containing false allegations against Dr.Suresh Ezhuthachan as instructed by the petitioner herein and the other accused, with a view to procure a false prosecution for grave offences liable to be punished with imprisonment for life or imprisonment. It was in the said circumstances that respondent No.2 proposed to launch a prosecution against the petitioner and the other accused for the offences as aforesaid. It is contended by the learned counsel that circumstances being so, interference of this Court is absolutely unwarranted in the matter. 10. The learned Public Prosecutor has attacked the averments put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner with contentions similar to those raised by the counsel for the defacto complainant. 11. In the said backdrop, this Court ventured to see whether the arguments of the petitioner hold merits. As already stated, the offences newly incorporated and in respect of which the prosecution is proposed to be launched against the petitioner and the co-accused are those punishable under Sections 195, 109, read with 34 IPC and 117(d) of the Act, 2011. 12. For an offence under Section 195 IPC to be attracted, the person against whom allegations are raised, must have given false evidence before a court of law. 12. For an offence under Section 195 IPC to be attracted, the person against whom allegations are raised, must have given false evidence before a court of law. In the case on hand, the FIS was lodged by Smt. Sheeja and that formed the very basis for the registration of crime No.876/2014, which is Annexure A1 in the case on hand. As already stated Annexure A1 was originally registered for the offences under Sections 354, 376(1), 376(2)(e) of the IPC based on the First Information Statement lodged by Smt.Sheeja. The respondent No.2 has conducted investigation in the case and it was exposed to him during the course of investigation that Smt.Sheeja has given a false statement and the same was given at the instigation of two persons, one among whom is the petitioner herein. Accordingly, a report was filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thrissur for removing Sections 354, 376(1) and 376(2)(e) IPC. An investigation was also proposed to be conducted with the petitioner as the first accused and another person as the second accused against the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 195, 109 read with Section 34 IPC and 117(d) of the Act, 2011. Prosecution was not proposed against Smt.Sheeja. It was Smt.Sheeja, who lodged the FIS which subsequently turned to be a false one. The allegation raised against the petitioners in the proposed prosecution for the pursuit of which permission for investigation under Section 167 Cr.P.C was sought was that the petitioner and the co-accused instigated Smt.Sheeja to lodge the FIS containing false allegations against Dr.Suresh Ezhuthachan liable to procure punishment of imprisonment for life or imprisonment for him. 13. In this connection it is pertinent to note that whether the petitioner had given false evidence or fabricated false evidence before a court of law, so as to attract the offence under Section 195 IPC against him. Section 195 IPC reads as follows : “195. 13. In this connection it is pertinent to note that whether the petitioner had given false evidence or fabricated false evidence before a court of law, so as to attract the offence under Section 195 IPC against him. Section 195 IPC reads as follows : “195. Giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction of offence punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment.-Whoever gives or fabricates false evidence intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will there by cause, any person to be convicted of an offence which by the law for the time being in force in India is not capital, but punishable with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for a term of seven years or upwards, shall be punished as a person convicted of that offence would be liable to be punished.” Section 195 IPC postulates two ingredients viz., giving false evidence and fabricating false evidence. Section 191 provides for the salient features of the offence of giving false evidence and it comprises three essential features as mentioned hereinbelow: (1) legal obligation to state the truth (2) Making of a false statement (3) belief in its falsity. Section 192 provides for the salient features of fabricating false evidence and it comprises five essential features as noted hereinbelow: (i) There must be causing of any circumstances to exist or making any false entry in any book or record or making any document containing a false statement. (ii) It must be with the intention that it may appear in evidence. (iii) Such evidence must be before a judge; arbitrator or public servant. (iv) That it may cause him to entertain an erroneous opinion. (v) upon any material point. 14. From the allegations incorporated by respondent No.2 in his report filed under Section 167 Cr.P.C, the ingredients of the offences alleged are not made out. There is total want of allegation either to the effect that the petitioner had given false evidence before a court of law or that he had instigated Smt.Sheeja to give evidence before a court of law. The allegation would not also include that the petitioner had fabricated false evidence or instigated Smt.Sheeja to fabricate false evidence and adduce the same before a court of law. The allegation would not also include that the petitioner had fabricated false evidence or instigated Smt.Sheeja to fabricate false evidence and adduce the same before a court of law. The allegation would only disclose that the petitioner along with the other accused had instigated Smt.Sheeja to lodge an FIS containing false allegations against Dr.Suresh Ezhuthachan before respondent No.2, who is none other than a police officer. 14. It has been held by the Apex Court in Shambhu Das @ Bijoy Das & Anr.v. State of Assam [ AIR 2010 SC 3300 ] that an FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C is not a substantive piece of evidence and its use is only to contradict or corroborate with the statement given by the First Informant himself at a later point of time. In order to be qualified to be FIR, there must be something in the nature of a complaint or accusation or at least some information of the crime given with the object of setting the police or criminal law in motion. It must contain some information about the crime committed as also some information about the manner in which the cognizable offence has been committed. 15. The Apex Court has also held in Ramprasad v. State of Maharastra [ AIR 1999 SC 1969 ] that statement of witnesses before the investigating officer cannot be used as evidence. It is only that part of the statement, if duly proved, may be used by the accused and with the permission of the Court by the prosecution to contradict the witnesses concerned in the manner provided by Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act. 16. In Vittappan's case (supra), cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, a Single Bench of this Court had occasion to consider whether a First Information Statement containing false allegation would form basis for prosecution under Section 191 IPC and held in the negative as follows: “It is said that the complaint was thereafter filed on the allegation that either the statements in Ext.P1or those as PW1 must be false and therefore the appellant must be proceeded against. Ext.P1cannot satisfy the requirements of S.191of the Indian Penal Code even if some of the statements contained therein are proved to be false to the knowledge or belief of the appellant or that he did not believe them to be true. Ext.P1cannot satisfy the requirements of S.191of the Indian Penal Code even if some of the statements contained therein are proved to be false to the knowledge or belief of the appellant or that he did not believe them to be true. While giving Ext.P1Pw.1 was not legally bound by an oath or by an express provision of law to state the truth and he was also not bound by law to make a declaration upon any subject. It is only an information given under S.154 of the Code regarding commission of a cognizable offence intended to set the law in motion. Though the maker has to sign the statement which is recorded, the Section does not even say that the statement should be true to the maker's knowledge or belief or that it should be given on oath. Even a telephone information regarding commission of a cognizable offence by unknown persons could form first information under S.154. In contra-distinction with S.154, the statement given under S.161, though not to be signed by the maker, must be true because S.161(2) says “shall be bound to answer truly” First information statement is only the information on which the concerned police officer has to start the investigation to find out the truth and collect the materials. It can be given no hearsay information also. A wrong first information purposely made for initiating action may be of consequence under some other provision for example in an action for malicious prosecution, but it is not penal under S.193 on the basis of S.191. Therefore the falsity of any statement in Ext.P1 cannot be the basis of prosecution. The Sessions Judge was not able to come to the conclusion whether the falsity was in Ext.P1 or in the evidence given as Pw.1. The basis of the conclusion is only the discrepancies between Ext.P1 and the evidence as Pw.1. Going by the reasoning of the Sessions Judge the falsity can be in Ext.P1itself and if so the evidence as Pw.1can be true also. In that event also there is no question of prosecution under S.193.” 17. In the case on hand, the allegations in the report filed by respondent No.2 under Section 167 Cr.P.C are insufficient to attract the offence under Section 195 IPC against the petitioner for the aforesaid reasons. In that event also there is no question of prosecution under S.193.” 17. In the case on hand, the allegations in the report filed by respondent No.2 under Section 167 Cr.P.C are insufficient to attract the offence under Section 195 IPC against the petitioner for the aforesaid reasons. It is not revealed from the report that the petitioner had given any false evidence or fabricated false evidence to adduce before a court of law. It is also not revealed from the allegations that the petitioner along with the other accused had instigated the lady to give false evidence or fabricate false evidence to adduce before a court of law. As already stated, by lodging a false FIS, a person cannot be said to have given false evidence before a court of law or fabricated false evidence as contemplated by the provision. Similarly, a person cannot be said to have instigated another to give false evidence before a court of law or fabricate evidence even if it turns out later that the former was behind the lodging of the false FIS by the latter. 18. Before adverting to the sustainability of the offence under Section 109 IPC based on the allegations of respondent No.2 it is apposite to extract the provision hereunder: “109. Punishment of abetment if the act abetted is committed in consequence and where no express provision is made for its punishment:- Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence. Explanation-An act or offence is said to be committed in consequence of abetment, when it is committed in consequence of the instigation, or in pursuance of the conspiracy, or with the aid which constitutes the abetment”. Therefore, it is mandatory that for an offence of abetment to be attracted, the Act abetted must be committed in consequence of the abetment. When viewed in this backdrop, it is relevant to notice that the Act alleged as abetted, i.e., giving false evidence before a court of law or fabricating false evidence to adduce before a court of law under Section 195 IPC, was not allegedly committed. When viewed in this backdrop, it is relevant to notice that the Act alleged as abetted, i.e., giving false evidence before a court of law or fabricating false evidence to adduce before a court of law under Section 195 IPC, was not allegedly committed. Even if, it is taken for granted that Smt.Sheeja was compelled to give the First Information Statement containing false allegations against Dr.Suresh Ezhuthachan on the instigation of the petitioner and another, that would not be sufficient to attract the offence under Section 195 IPC for the reason that the statement lodged by her as FIS is not evidence and it was not tendered before a court of law. 19. Yet another ingredient to attract the offence of giving false evidence was that the person making it would be legally bound to make the same. Therefore, if the person making it does not have any legal obligation to give the truth in evidence, he cannot be made liable for a prosecution for giving false evidence. In the case on hand, the petitioner as well as the other accused were not under any legal obligation to tender any evidence nor to abstain from adducing any evidence. Smt.Sheeja, who according to the prosecution, was the person allegedly given the false FIS, was also not under any legal obligation as contemplated by Section 195 IPC while lodging the FIS. In the aforesaid circumstances the petitioner is not liable to be prosecuted for the alleged action of instigating Smt.Sheeja to give false evidence under Section 109 r/w Section 195 IPC. The action of respondent No.2 proposing to conduct investigation against the petitioner for the offences under Section 109 r/w Section 195 IPC so as to prosecute him would not legally sustain. 20. The further aspect to be looked into is the attractability of the offence under Section 117(d) of the Act, 2011 based on the allegations set forth in the report filed by respondent No.2 under Section 167 Cr.P.C. It is relevant to have the provision extracted hereunder for convenient reference. “117. xxxxxxxxxx (a) xxxxxxxx (b) xxxxxxxx (c) xxxxxxx (d) deliberately makes a false statement to a Police Officer with intent to mislead the police in material particulars in a police investigation or due performance of police duty; or (e) xxxxxxx” 21. “117. xxxxxxxxxx (a) xxxxxxxx (b) xxxxxxxx (c) xxxxxxx (d) deliberately makes a false statement to a Police Officer with intent to mislead the police in material particulars in a police investigation or due performance of police duty; or (e) xxxxxxx” 21. When viewed in the backdrop of the allegations set forth in the report of respondent No.2, there is nothing to disclose that a false statement has been given by the petitioner deliberately to a police officer with intend to mislead the police in material particulars relating to a police investigation or due performance of police duty. Therefore, there is nothing in the report filed by respondent No.2 liable to attract an offence under Section 117(d) of the Act, 2011. 22. In view of the discussion as aforesaid, there is force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The report of respondent No.2 proposing further investigation against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Section 195, 109 r/w Section 34 IPC and Section 117(d) of the Act, 2011 newly incorporated into Annexure A1 is not liable to be pursued with. The offences in respect of which further investigation is sought to be conducted by respondent No.2 against the petitioner will not sustain for the foregoing reasons and the reliefs sought for by the petitioner in the case on hand, is not liable to be granted. 23. Respondent No.2 is highly unjustified in proposing investigation against the petitioner for the commission of the offences as aforesaid to launch a prosecution. In the said circumstances, the proceedings proposed by respondent No.2 as per the report filed by him before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court No.1, Thrissur under Section 167 Cr.P.C is only liable to be quashed. In the result, this Crl.M.C stands allowed. All further proceedings proposed to be conducted by respondent No.2 and already initiated pursuant to that based on Annexure A1 stands quashed forthwith.