JUDGMENT Dr. V.R.K. Krupa Sagar, J. - This Criminal Revision case is filed under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. questioning the correctness of the Order dated 12.02.2007 of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool. 2. Respondent No.1 is the State. Respondent Nos.2 to 6 are shown and according to the revision petitioner Respondent Nos.2 to 5 are not necessary parties. Thus, it is Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.6 who are necessary parties to this revision. Respondent No.6 is the then Sub Inspector of Police, Kodumur and thereafter working at Dhone Police Station of Kurnool District. 3. The following facts are required to be noticed:- This criminal revision petitioner is stated to be a journalist. Mr.B.Venu Gopal Naidu of kummarigeri of Kurnool District is stated to be a fair price shop dealer. On a written information lodged by fair price shop dealer Cr.No.39 of 2002 was registered at Kodumur Police Station for the offences under Sections 384 and 506 IPC. The allegations were that, this revision petitioner was making false accusations about handling of fair price shop and demanded Rs.1,000/- from Sri B.Venugopal Naidu stating that if the money was not paid to him he would raise complaints against him and see that his dealership was cancelled and he would be implicated in false cases. Mr.P.Sreenivasulu., the Sub-Inspector of Police investigated the crime and having examined five witnesses, a charge sheet was laid and learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kurnool registered the same as C.C.No.286 of 2002. After due trial, by a judgment dated 31.08.2004 the present revision petitioner was found not guilty and he was acquitted. In the penultimate paragraph of the judgment, the learned Magistrate observed that out of reasonable doubt he entertained about the credibility of evidence, he reached to the conclusion of not guilty of the accused/revision petitioner. There is no observation that the charge was filed without any just or lawful ground. 4. Thereafter alleging that he was un-necessarily harassed by the Sub Inspector of Police and his sub-ordinate police officers, this criminal revision petitioner filed a case and that was registered as C.C.No.256 of 2004 and that was pending before the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, (Prohibition & Excise) Kurnool. 5. 4. Thereafter alleging that he was un-necessarily harassed by the Sub Inspector of Police and his sub-ordinate police officers, this criminal revision petitioner filed a case and that was registered as C.C.No.256 of 2004 and that was pending before the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, (Prohibition & Excise) Kurnool. 5. This criminal revision petitioner also filed another complaint before the learned Magistrate as against the Sub-Inspector of Police and four others, stating a few facts about the harassment on the part of police and fair price dealer and requested the Court to take cognizance for the offence under Section 211 Indian Penal Code. Looking at the allegations therein, the learned Magistrate passed an order on 12.02.2007 stating that as far as Sub-Inspector of Police is concerned there was already C.C.No.256 of 2004 pending and therefore the complaint was dismissed to that extent against Respondent No.6 herein. He took certain other steps so far as the other individuals arrayed as accused therein with which nothing is required to be noticed in this revision. 6. Aggrieved by that Order of refusal to take cognizance as against Sub-Inspector for an offence under Section 211 of Indian Penal Code the present revision is filed. 7. As per the averments in the revision petition at the behest of this revision petitioner there is yet another C.C.No.154 of 2007 filed by him against police officers. In this revision it is urged that the learned Magistrate did not issue summons to accused and did not permit this revision petitioner to prosecute the case and the learned Magistrate did not even look into the details of the complaint and therefore to meet the ends of justice the impugned Order shall be set-aside. 8. The point that falls for consideration is: - 'Whether in dismissing the complaint the learned Magistrate acted against law requiring interference?' 9. POINT:- The case of the revision petitioner is that charge sheet filed in C.C.No.286 of 2002 by Respondent No.6 is a case of false charge for an offence made with an intention to injure this revision petitioner. This revision petitioner was tried by the trial Court and was acquitted and therefore a clear case was made out to prosecute the Sub Inspector who filed charge sheet in C.C.No.286 of 2002. This revision petitioner was tried by the trial Court and was acquitted and therefore a clear case was made out to prosecute the Sub Inspector who filed charge sheet in C.C.No.286 of 2002. Irrespective of the merits of the matter, filing a complaint before the learned Magistrate for the offence under Section 211 IPC as against Respondent No.6 herein itself is not maintainable for the following reasons. Section 195 of Code of Criminal Procedure in Subsection (1)(b)(i) provides that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 211 IPC, except on the complaint in writing of that Court or by such officer of the Court as that Court may authorize in writing in this behalf or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate. 10. Since the contention of the revision petitioner is that the false charge sheet was filed by Sub-Inspector before the Court, the said Sub-Inspector/Respondent No.6 shall be prosecuted. By virtue of above provision contained in Section 195 Cr.P.C. it is found that only the Court where charge sheet was filed was made competent to lodge a complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate who in turn could take cognizance and proceed further against those who were instrumental in prosecuting this revision petitioner on a false charge. This revision petitioner by himself by way of a private complaint could not prosecute Respondent No.6 and in that view of the matter the Order of the learned Magistrate in dismissing the prayer of this revision petitioner is correct. However, it is to be noticed that the impugned Order does not refer to any of these provisions and the decision was taken by the learned Magistrate based on certain other facts. The impugned Order refers to another case of prosecution lodged by this revision petitioner against that Sub-Inspector pending before him and that is also with reference to the falsity of case in C.C.No.286 of 2002. It was in those circumstances, the learned Magistrate dismissed the prayer of this revision petitioner. In fact the crux of charge under Section 211 IPC is that the false charge must have been raised against the individual by the Sub-Inspector without any just or lawful ground. It was in those circumstances, the learned Magistrate dismissed the prayer of this revision petitioner. In fact the crux of charge under Section 211 IPC is that the false charge must have been raised against the individual by the Sub-Inspector without any just or lawful ground. The complaint filed by the revision petitioner before the learned Magistrate doesn't even contain any averment to that effect nor it mentioned any facts enabling a Court of law to see that there was prima-facie material to think that earlier charge sheet was filed without any lawful ground or a just ground. Viewed from any angle the prayer made by this revision petitioner before the learned Magistrate was wholly erroneous. The final conclusion reached by the learned Magistrate in dismissing the complaint against Respondent No.6 certainly is in tune with the law referred earlier. Since the final conclusions reached by the learned Magistrate are in accordance with law, there is absolutely no merit in this revision. Point is answered against the revision petitioner. 11. In the result, the criminal revision case is dismissed confirming the Order dated 12.02.2007 of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kurnool in C.C.No.154 of 2007. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.