JUDGMENT : SANDEEP MEHTA, J. 1. By way of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner Preetibala has approached this Court for challenging the order dated 21.04.2015 passed by the learned ACJM, Kapasan in Criminal Case No.116/2015 whereby, cognizance was taken against the petitioner for the offence under Section 211 IPC on the basis of a complaint filed by the SHO, Police Station Kapasan. 2. The proceedings are assailed on the ground that only the court concerned where, the proceedings were initiated could have filed the complaint. Shri Rajesh Parihar, learned counsel representing the petitioner vehemently urged that as the complaint was filed by the SHO, Police Station Kapasan, the proceedings thereof are not maintainable as being barred by Section 195 Cr.P.C. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the Supreme Court decision rendered in the case of Kamalapati Trivedi vs. The State of West Bengal, reported in AIR 1979 SC 777 . 3. Per contra, Shri Narpat Chouhan, learned counsel representing the respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner’s counsel. They urged that the petitioner misused the police machinery by lodging a patently false FIR No.518/2014 at the Police Station Kapasan for the offences under Sections 376 and 376D IPC. Not only did the petitioner lodge a false case against Sunil Upadhyaya but during the course of investigation, she submitted application to the Inspector General of Police, Udaipur Range and the Superintendent of Police, Chittorgarh to arrest Sunil Upadhyay and Puran Salvi (against whom even the FIR had not been lodged). The FIR lodged by the petitioner was thoroughly investigated and during the course of investigation, the petitioner submitted an affidavit dated 30.03.2015 to the Superintendent of Police, Chittorgarh with an application stating therein that the accused Sunil Upadhyay had not committed rape with her and that the previous statements given by her under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as well as under Section 164 Cr.P.C. implicating the accused for such offence were incorrect. Accordingly, the I.O. found the prosecution story to be improved and submitted a negative final report in the court concerned and thereafter, proceeded to lodge the impugned complaint, for the offence under Section 211 IPC against the petitioner in the court of the ACJM, Kapasan. Accordingly, the I.O. found the prosecution story to be improved and submitted a negative final report in the court concerned and thereafter, proceeded to lodge the impugned complaint, for the offence under Section 211 IPC against the petitioner in the court of the ACJM, Kapasan. The learned ACJM, proceeded to take cognizance against the petitioner for the offence under Section 211 IPC by the order dated 21.04.2015 which is assailed in the instant misc. petition. 4. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned order, the documents placed on record and have also given careful and respectful consideration to the law cited by Shri Parihar. 5. Ex-facie, I am of the firm opinion that the misc. petition is misconceived and misdirected. Section 211 IPC reads as below:- “211. 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 that 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 extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; and if such criminal proceeding be instituted on a false charge of an offence punishable with death, 1[imprisonment for life], or imprisonment for seven years or upwards, shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.” 6. The provision creates an offence for institution of a false charge against any person of having committed an offence knowing that there is no just or lawful ground for such proceedings or charge against that person. Apparently thus, the process of criminal law referred to in the abovementioned Section may either be instituted before the court or before the police directly and irrespective of the fact that where such false charge is made, the offence is punishable under Section 211 IPC. In case, the false charge is made before the Court, obviously the proceedings would have to be governed by the procedure provided for under Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Cr.P.C. and the complaint, if any, in relation to such offence would have to be filed by the Court concerned. In case, the false charge is made before the Court, obviously the proceedings would have to be governed by the procedure provided for under Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Cr.P.C. and the complaint, if any, in relation to such offence would have to be filed by the Court concerned. However, in the case at hand, the false charge of rape was made by the petitioner against the accused Sunil Upadhyaya by lodging an FIR before the Superintendent of Police, Chittorgarh. During the course of investigation, the complainant’s statements were recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and by the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Later on, in both these statements, she stuck to the allegation of rape levelled by her in the FIR lodged against Sunil Upadhyaya. While the investigation was underway, the petitioner initially filed an application before the Superintendent of Police, Chittorgarh praying that stringent action be taken against the accused and he should be arrested. However, later on, she resiled from her allegations and filed an affidavit before the Superintendent of Police, Chittorgarh swearing that the FIR had been filed with untrue allegations upon being instigated by someone. Apparently thus, the false criminal proceedings were instituted by the petitioner against the accused persons through the FIR lodged before the police and thus, the mechanism of police was misused by the petitioner to launch a false prosecution with an intent to injure the persons accused therein. 7. Thus, the Supreme Court Judgments in the case of Kamalapati Trivedi and Abdul Rehman & Ors. vs. K.M. Anees-ul-Haq, reported in RLW 2012(1) SC 255 have no application to the case at hand and are distinguishable on facts. In both these cases, the false charges were made in the proceedings before the Court. In the present case, since the false charge of the offence under Section 211 IPC was levelled before a public servant, the restriction contained in Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. would have no application whatsoever. 8. Hence, I find no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 21.04.2015 passed by the learned ACJM, Kapasan warranting interference therein while exercising inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Thus, the instant misc. petition as well as stay application are dismissed as being devoid of merit.