The central legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of adhering to the procedures outlined in the Code of Criminal Procedure before launching a prosecution, and the limitations on the powers of the Sub Inspector and the Magistrate in taking cognizance of offences.

1. Crl. MP No. 4089/85 filed by the petitioner before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Adimali on 24-10-1985 alleging commission of offences punishable under S.427 and 447 read with S.34 of the Indian Penal Code by some persons was forwarded by the Magistrate under S.156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for investigation to the second respondent Sub Inspector. Second respondent registered a case and on investigation, he came to the conclusion that the allegations are false. He issued a notice to the petitioner stating that the case is referred as false. Hence the petitioner filed another complaint on the same facts before the same Magistrate and it is being adjourned since the report of investigation was not received. Meanwhile second respondent filed Annexure Al complaint before the same Magistrate against the petitioner alleging commission of an offence punishable under S.181 of the Indian Penal Code in having filed Crl. MP No. 4089/85 before the Magistrate with false allegations. The Magistrate took cognizance of the offence as ST No. 679/85 and issued process to the petitioner. The present petition was filed for quashing the proceedings as an abuse of the process of law in exercise of the inherent powers of this Court.

2. There is allegation of malafides against the Sub Inspector which must normally be true if he was confirms of his powers and limitations and the provision of the relevant laws including S.181 of the Indian Penal Code. Otherwise he was acting in complete ignorance which also is not a credence to the Sub Inspector who may have to deal with crimes and law and order. Anyhow the Sub-Inspector who filed the complaint for an offence under S 181 of the Indian Penal Code and the Magistrate who took cognizance of that offence and issued process were both moving in the dark in respect of their powers, functions and duties. The Sub Inspector could file a complaint only in cases where he is authorised under any provision and the Magistrate could take cognizance only after considering various aspects which any include (1) the authority of the person who files the complaint, (2) whether the offence itself is disclosed and, (3) whether he is competent to rake cognizance as he has done.

3. In order to constitute an offence punishable under S.181 of the Indian Penal Code various ingredients are necessary. They are: (a) The accused took an oath or made the affirmation in question (b) He was legally bound to state the truth (c) such oath or affirmation was administered by a public servant or by a person authorised by law to administer the same (d) While so bound by oath or affirmation the accused made the statement in question to such person (e) The statement was made touching the subject on which he was thereby bound to state the truth (f) The statement was false and (g) The accused knew that his statement was false or bad reason to believe it was false or did not believe it was true. A falsehood made in good faith that it is true will not expose him to penalty. If only all these ingredients are there the action will constitute the offence.

4. Here there is no question of perjury. No oath or affirmation was administered either by the Magistrate or the Sub Inspector and the accused did not take an oath before either of them. Sworn statement was not recorded, by the Magistrate and the accused did not make any statement before the Sub Inspector. The complaint filed before the Magistrate is not a statement made on oath or affirmation by a person legally bound by oath or affirmation to state the truth on any subject on which he is bound to do so. The Sub Inspector has no such case also in the complaint. Therefore there is no question of the allegations in the complaint constituting an offence punishable under S.181 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. Let us assume without conceding that all the allegations in Crl. MP 4089/85 are false and it will constitute an offence punishable under S.181 of the Indian Penal Cod