The bar under S. 195 (1) (b) against taking cognizance by the Magistrate, except on a complaint in writing of a Court, will not come into operation unless all the following circumstances exist, viz., (1) that the offence in respect of which the case is brought falls under S. 211, I. P. C.; (2) that there should be a proceeding in any Court; and (3) that the allegation should be that the offence under S. 211 was committed in, or in relation to, such a proceeding.

Judgment

BHARGAVA, J. : This appeal filed under certificate granted by the High Court at Allahabad is directed against an order passed by that Court dismissing a revision application by which the appellant, M. L. Sethi, desired the vacation of an order passed by the Sessions Judge of Saharanpur upholding two orders of the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Saharanpur, dated 6th August, 1963 and 5th October, 1963. By these orders the Magistrate dismissed two applications presented by the appellant for dismissing a complaint pending before him for commission of offences under Sections 211, 204 and 385 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. A further prayer was made for an order by this Court quashing the proceedings pending in the Court of that Magistrate.

3. The facts necessary for deciding this appeal may be stated briefly. On December, 10, 1958, the appellant lodged a report with the Inspector-General of Police. Chandigarh, against R. P. Kapur (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent") and his mother-in-law charging them with commission. of offences punishable under Sections 420. 109. 114 and 120-B. I. P. C. It does not appeal to be necessary to give the details of the allegations made in that report. The charge in that First information Report was based on the allegation that the respondent and his mother-in-law, by conspiring together, cheated the appellant and his wife of a sum of Rs. 20,000/- by persuading the appellant to take a sale-deed of some land on certain false representations and on suppression of facts indicating that on the date when the sale-deed by the respondent s mother-in-law was executed in favour of the wife of the appellant, the title of the former had already extinguished, as the land been acquired by the Goverment under the Land Acquisition Act. The offence was registered as a cognizable offence and investigation was started.

4. On April 11, 1959, the respondent filed a complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chandigarh, against the appellant for commission of offences under Sections 204, 211 and 385 I. P. C. In this complaint, the respondent alleged that the land was sold by his mother-in-law to the appellant s wife as a favour to the appellant and that at that time, no misrepresentations at all were made in respect of any facts. The complaint added that the appellant was fully aware of the land acquisition proceedings; but because of fixation of low rate of compensation in the acquisition proceedings, the appellant suffered a loss of nearly Rs. 13,000. The appellant, being a clever criminal lawyer, went to the respondent s mother-in-law, Smt. Kaushaliya Devi and demanded the .sum of Rs. 13,000 and when she refused, he threatened her with dire consequences of criminal proceedings against her and her son-in-law, the respondent. A similar threat of criminal proceedings was also later given to the respondent himself by the appellant: and thereafter, the First Information Report was lodged with the Inspector-General of Police by the appellant December 10, 1958. The charge in the complaint further was that the allegations made in the First Information Report by the appellant were false to his knowledge and were contradicted by the appellant s own letters, writings and other correspondence. It was also stated that the false report to the police was made with the knowledge and intention of putting the respondent in fear of injury to his fair name and reputation in service and` otherwise and of being put under arrest and harassment in a criminal trial and thereby to induce him to deliver to the appellant Rs. 13,000 and submit to other terms that appellant may choose to impose. The last allegation was that the appellant was guilty of the offence under S. 204, I. P. C., for secreting five documents which were enumerated in the complaint and this offence was alleged to have been committed, because if these documents had been presented in time, the Police would not have entertained the complaint