JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Manish Kumar, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, A.P.P. appearing on behalf of opposite party-State. 3. The relief as prayed by the petitioner is as under:- “For quashing the order dated 28.08.2009 passed in G.R. Case No. 357 of 2007 arising out of Chakradharpur P.S. Case No. 155/2007 passed by S.D.J.M. Porahat at Chaibasa to the extent Learned court has directed initiation of proceeding under Section 182/211 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. The case is now pending before S.D.J.M. Porahat at Chaibasa; For quashing the order dated 28.08.2009 passed in C/7 Case No. 24/09 by learned S.D.J.M. Porahat at Chaibasa whereby and whereunder cognizance of offence under Section 182/211 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioner. The case is now pending before S.D.J.M., Porahat at Chaibasa.” 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that one F.I.R. was lodged by the petitioner being Chakradharpur P.S. Case No. 155 of 2007 which was instituted against one Upendra Singh and others and the case was ultimately investigated by the Sub-Inspector of Police as is apparent from the F.I.R. itself and the Sub-Inspector of Police had submitted final form dated 30.09.2008 whereby case was found to be untrue. 5. He further submits that immediately after submission of final form dated 30.09.2008 , prayer was also made by letter dated 01.10.2008 addressed to the learned court below by aforesaid Sub-Inspector of Police for the purposes of instituting a case under Sections 182/211 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioner for having filed false case. 6. Counsel submits that final form was ultimately accepted vide order dated 28.08.2009 and on the basis of said petition dated 01.10.2008 filed by the Sub Inspector of Police and addressed to the learned court below a direction was issued to institute a case under section Sections 182/211 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly Complaint Case No. 24/2009 was instituted and vide order dated 28.08.2009 cognizance has been taken under Section 182 / 211 of the Indian Penal Code. He submits that Complaint Case No. 24/2009 was instituted solely on the basis of the said petition dated 01.10.2008 filed by the Sub Inspector of Police . He submits that order taking cognizance under Section 182 / 211 of the Indian Penal Code in Complaint Case No. 24/2009 is under challenge in the instant case. He submits that Complaint Case No. 24/2009 was instituted solely on the basis of the said petition dated 01.10.2008 filed by the Sub Inspector of Police . He submits that order taking cognizance under Section 182 / 211 of the Indian Penal Code in Complaint Case No. 24/2009 is under challenge in the instant case. 7. Counsel refers to the provision of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and he submits that as per the provision of Section 195(1) there is specific provision that no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code except on the complaint in writing made by a public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. He submits that in the instant case public servant concerned was officer-in-charge of the Chakradharpur Police Station and the person who investigated the case i.e. Sub Inspector of Police was neither the person concerned nor was administratively controlling the officer-in-charge of the Chakradharpur Police Station, rather Sub Inspector of Police was subordinate to officer-in-charge of the Chakradharpur Police Station. He submits that accordingly the Complaint Case No. 24/2009, which was instituted on the basis of petition dated 30.09.2008, filed by Sub Inspector of Police ,was itself barred under the provisions of Section 195 (1) (a) (i) of Code of Criminal Procedure under the facts and circumstances of this case. 8. He further submits that cognizance has also been taken under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code and he refers to Section 195 (1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to submit that complaint under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code, in the facts and circumstances of this case, could have been instituted only upon the complaint made by the court or such officer of the court as authorised by the court in writing in that behalf. He submits that in the instant case no complaint was ever filed by the court concerned or any officer of the court. Under such circumstances cognizance under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code also is hit by the provision of Section 195 (1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 9. He submits that in the instant case no complaint was ever filed by the court concerned or any officer of the court. Under such circumstances cognizance under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code also is hit by the provision of Section 195 (1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 9. Counsel for the petitioner has referred to two judgments reported in 2016 (3) JLJR 317 (Kamal Duggal vs. State of Jharkhand and Another) and 2011 (4) PLJR 24 (Raja Ram Singh vs. State of Bihar) in support of his submission. 10. Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State opposed the petition but during the course of argument did not dispute that no complaint has been filed by the court concerned or by an officer authorised by the court and that Sub Inspector of Police is subordinate to Officer-in-Charge of the concerned police station. 11. After hearing counsel for the parties and after considering the materials on record this court finds that admittedly a case was registered before the officer-in-charge of the Chakradharpur Police Station and the case was investigated by his subordinate i.e Sub Inspector of Police. The Investigating Officer after investigation of the case found the case to be untrue and final form was submitted vide final form dated 30.09.2008 and a petition dated 1.10.2008 was also filed by the Sub Inspector of Police before the learned court below to initiate a proceeding under section 182/211 of Indian Penal Code. Vide order dated 28.08.2009 the final form was accepted and by the same order, on the basis of petition dated 01.10.2008 filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, a direction was issued by the court to institute a case Section 182 / 211 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, Complaint Case No. 24/2009 was instituted and cognizance has been taken under Section 182 / 211 of the Indian Penal Code vide order dated 28.08.2009 which is also under challenge in the instant case. 12. Accordingly, Complaint Case No. 24/2009 was instituted and cognizance has been taken under Section 182 / 211 of the Indian Penal Code vide order dated 28.08.2009 which is also under challenge in the instant case. 12. Relevant provisions of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for the purposes of this case are as follows: - “Section 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). (ii) Of ……. (iii) Of…………., 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. (ii) ………... (iii……. 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 some other Court to which that Court is subordinate.” 13. From bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it appears that the Section provides for prosecution of contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence and it contains an embargo that no court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable, inter alia, under the aforementioned provision except on the complaint in writing by the public servant concerned or by some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. 14. Admittedly, in the instant case, the Officer in-charge of Police Station entrusted the investigation to the Sub Inspector of Police. Undoubtedly, the first information report was lodged at the instance of the Officer in-charge, of Police Station to whom the written report was made. The proceedings, therefore, was indisputably initiated at the instance of the Officer in-charge, of Police Station and not by the Sub Inspector of Police, who was the Investigating Officer. Undoubtedly, the first information report was lodged at the instance of the Officer in-charge, of Police Station to whom the written report was made. The proceedings, therefore, was indisputably initiated at the instance of the Officer in-charge, of Police Station and not by the Sub Inspector of Police, who was the Investigating Officer. Whatever action was taken in the matter was pursuant to the order of the Officer in-charge, of Police Station and accordingly the public servant concerned was to officer-in-charge of the police station and not his subordinate Sub Inspector of Police who had investigated the case. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Patna High Court in the aforesaid judgement relied upon by the petitioner. 15. In the instant case, the complaint was lodged at the instance of the Investigating Officer, who was junior to the Officer in-charge of the Police Station and not by a superior officer and accordingly , this court finds and holds that the criminal proceedings under section 182 of the Indian Penal code at the instance of Sub Inspector of Police being Complaint Case No. 24/2009 is not maintainable in view of bar under section 195(i) (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure under the facts and circumstances of this case. 16. So far as Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the same is also hit by Section 195 (i)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure which clearly provides that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable, interalia, under 211 when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation any proceeding in any Court, except upon a complaint in writing of that Court or by such office of the Court as the Court may authorize in writing in this behalf or some other Court to which that Court is subordinate. 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in judgement reported in AIR 1979 SC 777 , dealing with identical provision under the old criminal procedure code, quashed the proceeding under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code, on the ground that the concerned court which had granted bail and in which the final form was submitted and accepted, did not file any complaint petition against the petitioner. At paragraph no. 38 and 39 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: - “38. At paragraph no. 38 and 39 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: - “38. As the order releasing Trivedi on bail and the one ultimately discharging him of offence complained of amount to proceedings before the Court of that, all that remains to be seen is whether an offence under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code which is subject matter of the complaint against Trivedi can be said to have been committed “in relation to” those proceedings. Both the orders resulted directly from the information lodged by Trivedi with the police against Pathak and in this situation, there is no getting out of the conclusion that’s the said offence must be regarded as one committed in relation to those proceedings. This requirement of clause (b) aforementioned in also therefore fully satisfied.” “39.for the reasons stated I hold that the complaint against Trivedi is in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed in relation to proceeding in Court and that in taking cognizance of it the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate acted in contravention of the bar contained in said clause (b) as there was no complaint in writing either of the SDJM or of a superior Court. The result therefore, I accept the appeal and setting aside the order of the High Court quash the proceeding taken by the SDJM against Trivedi.” 18. This court finds that the ratio of this judgement fully applies to the facts and circumstances of the present case to the extent it relates to cognizance under section 211 of Indian Penal Code. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Patna High Court in the aforesaid judgement relied upon by the petitioner. 19. Admittedly, in the present case, police submitted final form and also prayed to initiate proceeding, interalia, under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code. The concerned Court in which the final form was submitted and accepted, neither itself nor authorized an officer of the court to file any complaint petition against the petitioner under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code. Further no such action was taken by any higher Court. So, in view of Section 195(i)(b) of the Cr.P.C. cognizance could not have been taken under section 211 of Indian Penal Code. 20. Further no such action was taken by any higher Court. So, in view of Section 195(i)(b) of the Cr.P.C. cognizance could not have been taken under section 211 of Indian Penal Code. 20. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid findings the order taking cognizance dated 28.08.2009 under section 182 as well as under section 211 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioner, in Complaint Case No. 24/2009, pending in the court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Porahat, at Chaibasa, is hereby set-aside. 21. This petition is accordingly disposed of.