Prosecution for offences under Section 211 IPC requires a complaint from the concerned Court; police action without such complaint lacks jurisdiction and cannot sustain prosecution.

ORDER :

1. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 24.10.2016, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.8, Jaipur, District Jaipur so also the proceedings, arising out of the criminal case No.708/2016 pending against the petitioner before the said Court, wherein cognizance has been taken against the petitioner under Section 211 IPC .

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed a criminal complaint against certain accused officials posted at the Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited with regard to certain irregularities committed by him while conducting examination, wherein the answer sheets/ OMR sheet of the petitioner was exchanged by committing forgery upon him.

3. Counsel submits that the said complaint was sent for investigation by the learned Magistrate to the Police Station Jyoti Nagar Jaipur (South) wherein after investigation, the concerned Investigating Officer submitted final report ‘Negative’ and the same was accepted by the learned Magistrate, but going a step further, the SHO of the Police Station Jyoti Nagar has filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 211 IPC levelling allegations against the petitioner that he has filed a false complaint before the Court to harass the alleged accused wherein after investigation, the allegations levelled by the petitioner were found to be false. The learned Magistrate, without applying his judicious mind and without passing a reasoned and speaking order, straightaway took cognizance against the petitioner under . Counsel submits that the offence under is a non-cognizable offence and as per the provisions contained under Section 195 (1)(b)(i) Cr.P.C., the Court cannot take cognizance of an offence which is punishable under unless a complaint is made by the Court concerned and herein the instant case, no such complaint was made by the concerned Court, hence, under these circumstances, the impugned proceedings arising out of the complaint, submitted by the Investigating Officer, are not tenable and are liable to be quashed and set-aside.

4. In support of his contentions, counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment passed by the Jharkhand High Court in the case of Prashant Kumar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand , (2013) SCC OnLine Jhar 287.

5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner, but he is not in a position to controvert the submissions made by him.

6. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record.

7. Perusal of the record indicates that the petitioner filed a criminal complaint under Section 424, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC against certain officials of the Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, wherein it was alleged by the petitioner that some manipulation was done with his answer sheet/ OMR sheet and treating such an act as an offence, the aforesaid complaint was filed and after going through the same, the learned Magistrate thought it is proper to send the matter for investigation to the Police Station Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur (South) whereupon the F.I.R. No.249/2015 was registered under Sections 240 , 467, 468, 471 & 120-B and after investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted final report ‘Negative’ stating that no offence was found to be made out and the complaint was submitted by the petitioner with an intention to harass the accused persons.

8. The aforesaid final report was accepted by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 19.07.2016. Thereafter, a co