T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.

The question raised in this writ petition is whether pursuant to a preliminary enquiry initiated under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the court can direct the superior officer of the person involved to take legal action for offence under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, instead of proceeding to file a complaint as envisaged under Section 340 Crl.P.C.

2. The petitioner is a Head Constable of Chengannur Police Station. An accused in S.C.No.565/2006 before the Assistant Sessions Court, Chengannur involved in an offence under Section 55(a) of Abkari Act, was absconding after being enlarged on bail. The case was transferred to the register of Long Pending Cases as L.P.C.No.2/2008. Later on, coercive proceedings were initiated against one of the sureties by issuing a distress warrant for the levy of bond amount by attachment and sale of movable property of the surety as contemplated under Section 421 (1)(a) of Cr.P.C.

3. The petitioner was authorized to execute the warrant. He filed a report before the Court stating that there are no movable properties in the house of the surety and hence warrant could not be executed. Doubting the veracity of the report, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge directed the concerned Village Officer to conduct a local inspection and prepare an inventory of the movables found in the house of the surety.

4. The Village Officer in his report gave details of the movable items available in the house. The movables available were valued at Rs.12,000/-. Thereafter, the court initiated enquiry under Section 340 Crl.P.C. Five witnesses were examined and two documents were marked. It is at this stage the proceedings impugned in this writ petition was initiated at the instance of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge. By Ext.P2 addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Alappuzha, the learned Judge, on being satisfied that the report filed by the petitioner is a false one, which amounts to an offence punishable under Section 193 I.P.C., requested to take stringent legal action against him, for filing the said false report (Ext.C1(a) in the judicial proceeding in the said case and for willful dereliction of the discharge in his duties. The Superintendent of Police was directed to report the action taken by him, to the court on or before 310.2008. By Ext.P3 order, the petitioner was suspended from service by the Superintendent of Police. The Sub Inspector of Police, Chengannur was also directed to register a case under Section 193 I.P.C. against him and report compliance by return.

5. The petitioner is challenging Extx.P2 and P3 in this writ petition. The Petitioner contends that both the orders, Exts.P2 and P3 are without jurisdiction and Ext.P2 is beyond the powers of the Criminal Court. It is contended that the Court is not having the power to direct the superior authority to take stringent action against an officer or to direct the said authority to register a crime under Section 193 I.P.C. it is stated that such an action is beyond the scheme provided under Section 340 Crl.P.C., since going by the procedure therein, the Court has to make a complaint thereof in writing and send it to a Magistrate of the First Class having jurisdiction.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Shri R.T. Pradeep and Shri V.G. Govindan Nair, learned Director General of Prosecution for respondents.

7. For convenience, Section 340 (1) Crl.P.C. is extracted below:

“340. Procedure in cases mentioned in Section 195.- When upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, such Court may, af