VIKRAMADITYA PRASAD, J.

1. This is a petition for quashing the order dated 15.7.2002 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dumka in PCR Case No. 272/0.1, GR No. 362/02, whereby and whereunder the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence under Section 147/500/503/ 504, IPC.

2. It transpires that one Balram Bhagat had filed a complaint against the petitioner alleging, inter alia, that though there was no order restraining the complainant, but the accused of that case (petitioner here) misled the police that there was an order of the Court and consequently got the work stopped and because of the stoppage of the work, there was loss caused to the complainant, besides he also intermediated him and threatened the masons working there.

3. Since the offence disclosed was non-conginzable, it appears that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate referred it to the police for investigation. It further transpires that after investigation, the police submitted charge- sheet of the offence under Section 182/147/500/509/504, IPC against the accused Ramanand Sah and thereon, the learned Magistrate passed the following order :--

"15.7.2002 Abhiyukt Ramanand Sah ka Pratinidhitwa Hai Jise Aaj Matr ke Liye Swikrit Kiya Jata Hai Aarop Patr Dhara 182/147/500/509/504 Bha. Da. Vi Ke Antargat Ablayukt Ramanand Sah ke Birudh Prapt Hua. Parantu Anusandhan Karta Dwara Alag Se Dhara 182 Bha. Da. Vi Ke Antargat Se Abhiyog Chalane Hetu Alag Se kisi Prakar ka Awedan Diya Gaya Hai. Aarop Patr Tatha Case Diary Ke Awlokan Se Abhiyukt Ke Birudh Dhara 147/500/503/504 Bha. Da. Vi. Pratham Drastya Me Sahi Pratit Hota Hai.

Atah Bad Me Dhara 147/500/503/ 504 Bha. Da. Vi Ke Antargat Abhiyukt Ke Birudh Apradh Ka Sangyan Liya Jata Hai Tatha Abhilekh Nispadanarth Shri S.K. Choudhary, Nya. Danda. Dumka ki Sanchika Me Maine Bheja Jata Dinak 17.8.2002 Ke Purb Abhilekh Ukt Nyayalaya Awash Bheje Hain."

Thus, the order passed is in two parts-first the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 147/500/503/ 504, IPC and secondly, he refused to take cognizance under Section 182, IPC on the ground that no complaint was filed by the Police Officer.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the order on the ground that the impugned order had been passed in a mechanical manner without application of mind and not considering the fact that the civil suit was pending between the parties and that the opp. party in this case is a practising lawyer, who is trying to pressurize the petitioner, who is a doctor by profession.

5. There is no law that when civil suit is pending between the parties, no criminal case, inter se, can be entertained. That is a matter of appreciation of evidence whether the case was lodged falsely because of a civil litigation being pending. Law is that if the case is non-cognizable, the Magistrate, on receipt of the complaint, may send it to the police for investigation. Originally, the information, that was given to the Chief Judicial Magistrate in the form of the complaint, disclosed the offence under Sections 503 and 504, IPC and the learned Magistrate has committed no illegality in referring it to the police for enquiry into the matter and if, on enquiry, the police found prima facie case and submitted charge-sheet, it is not against the law or illegal. The police also submitted charge-sheet under Section 182, IPC as stated above. Section 195(a)(i), Cr PC provides that if an offence under Section 182, IPC is made out, then it is the public servant to whom false complaint is made or his subordinate who is competent to file the complaint and in absence of such complaint under this section, no cognizance can be taken. Consequently, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has said in the impugned order that as the complaint has not been filed by the Police Officer concerned, no cognizance of the offence under Section 182, IPC could be taken.

6. Now the question is whether, in a charge-sheet, which is the result of th