The main legal point established in the judgment is that the allegations in the false FIS did not satisfy the essential elements of the offences under Sections 195, 109 read with Section 34 IPC and 117(d) of the Act, 2011, and therefore, the proposed prosecution against the petitioner was not legally sustainable.

This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the FIR registered as Crime No.876/2014, a copy of which is appended with this petition as Annexure A1.

2. The petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.876/2014. Respondent No.2 has been entrusted with the task of investigation of a case based on Crime No.876/2014. A crime was registered initially, for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 376(1), 376(2)(e) of the Indian Penal Code. The first informant was one Smt.Sheeja. The allegations were levelled by her against one Dr.Suresh Ezhuthachan that he has committed the offences punishable under Sections 354, 376(1), 376(2)(e) of the Indian Penal Code, against her.

3. Investigation was proceeded with in Crime No.876/2014 as registered originally by the Thrissur Town East Police Station. The investigating officer had arrived at a finding that the allegations levelled by Smt.Sheeja, the defacto complainant in the FIS, which formed the basis for the registration of the FIR are false ones. Accordingly, a report as Annexure A2 was filed by respondent No.2 under Section 167 Cr.P.C. before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court No.1, Thrissur. The report incorporates the revelation of the investigating officer from the investigation conducted by him that the petitioner and another accused have caused the defacto complainant to give a false FIS against Dr.Suresh Ezhuthachan, R/O.Aswani Hospital, Thrissur, before respondent No.2 and thereby got the crime in question registered against him. Accordingly, a report was filed before the Judicial First Class Court No.1, Thrissur under Section 167 Cr.P.C for removing the offences originally incorporated in Annexure A1 and to obtain permission to continue investigation by incorporating offences punishable under Sections 195, 109 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) and 117(d) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 (for short 'the Act, 2011') against the petitioner and another accused.

4. Aggrieved by the action of respondent No.2 that the first accused has approached this Court in the captioned proceedings seeking to quash the same. The allegations raised against the petitioner was that he had instigated the defacto complainant to give false evidence with an intention to procure conviction of Dr.Suresh Ezhuthachan for offences liable to be punished with imprisonment for life or imprisonment.

5. Sri.Anoop C.C., the learned counsel, advanced arguments on behalf of the petitioner. Vide order of this court dated 8.12.2017 in Crl.M.A. No.1399/2016, the de facto complainant was brought on record in the proceedings on hand.

6. Sri.S.Manu, the learned counsel, representing the de facto complainant, Smt.Rehna N.S., the learned Public Prosecutor representing respondents 1 to 3 were heard elaborately on their rival contentions.

7. Sri.Anoop C.C., the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a report under Section 167 Cr.P.C was filed by respondent No.2 proposing to conduct investigation against the petitioner as accused No.1 so as to prosecute him for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 195, 109 read with Section 34 IPC and 117(d) of the Act, 2011 without any basis. According to him, the action of respondent No.2 can only be treated as sheer abuse of the authority. The contention secondly advanced by the learned counsel was that a person is said to give false evidence under Section 191 IPC only when he makes any statement, which is false, which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, when he is legally bound by an oath or by an expressed provision of law to state the truth or being bound by law to make a declaration upon any subject. According to the learned counsel, falsity of allegations in the first information statement cannot be the basis for launching a prosecution against the petitioner for the offence under Section 191 IPC. The learned counsel placed reliance on Vittappan v. State [1987 (2) K