1. The information of dacoity given by the petitioner to the police was, on investigation, found to be false; and the police forwarded a final report accordingly under S.173 of the Criminal Procedure Code to the magistrate having jurisdiction, having, of course, sent a report earlier under S.157. The petitioner did not repeat his charge before the magistrate although he was duly served with notice under S.173(1 )(b). The magistrate did not take cognizance of the alleged offence and the only order he made on the final report was to record approval of the action taken by the police. Now, the only proceedings in court with regard to this matter were these two reports by the police; and, in respect of neither can it be said that in court or in relation to any proceeding in court, the petitioner instituted or caused to be instituted any criminal proceeding against any person or that be charged any person with having committed an offence so as to attract S.195(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code in respect of his prosecution for an offence under S.211 of the Indian Penal Code. The commitment of the petitioner to Sessions for that offence is therefore, not liable to be questi