The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Magistrate was justified in taking cognizance of the offences under Section 211, 500, and 506(2) IPC, and the petitioner's arguments were not supported by legal authorities.

This petition has been filed against the orders of the Additional Sessions Judge, Pondicherry, passed in Crl.R.P.No.1 of 2001, dismissing the revision, filed against the orders passed in Crl.M.P.No.1803 of 2001 in C.C.No.338 of 2000, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-I, Pondicherry, who had dismissed the application for discharge filed by the petitioner herein, against the prosecution of offences under Section 211, 500 and 506(2) IPC.

2.Since the original petition itself, filed by the petitioner, was against the cognizance taken by the Magistrate in relation to the private complaint filed by the respondent herein and the same having been dismissed, against which a revision was filed before the Court of Sessions, which had also confirmed the orders of the learned Magistrate, this Court could have easily disposed of the matter by stating that in terms of 399(3) a petition in the nature of a second revision is not maintainable, as two courts have already gone into the preliminary objection taken by the petitioner and dismissed those applications. However, it is seen that in order to get away from the bar under Section 399(3) IPC, this petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, which amply establishes the fact that what cannot be directly done is sought to be indirectly done by invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C.

3.Nevertheless, since the counsel persisted in his argument stating that the Magistrate had taken cognizance on the private complaint, which is in flagrant violation of laws and this is one of the exceptional cases, where the inherent powers of the High Court has to be invoked to rectify such mistakes, I consider it necessary to go into the facts of the case.

4. It may not be very relevant to go into the facts of the case, suffice to state for the purpose of disposing of this application that the petitioner had earlier given a complaint to the Inspector General of Police, Pondicherry on 21.8.2000, against the respondent herein alleging that the respondent has forged his signatures and impersonated him in the District Registrar's Office at Pondicherry and thereby executed five gift Settlement Deeds in his favour. The said matter was referred by the Inspector General of Police to the CID of Police, Pondicherry, who summoned the respondent and conducted an enquiry, which is pending. In addition to this complaint, the petitioner had also given false message before the private TV Channel called Sky Sat, which has telecasted the same in Pondicherry on 24.8.2000, 26.8.2000 and 27.8.2000 and thereby the petitioner is said to have wilfully given a false complaint to the police, thereby committed offences under Section 211 IPC as well as under Section 500 IPC, defaming the respondent through his message in the media, which are false to his knowledge and wantonly made. Hence the respondent herein had filed a private complaint before the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pondicherry on 06.09.2000, who after taking sworn statement and examining witnesses under Section 200 Cr.P.C had taken cognizance of the complaint under Section 211, 500 and 506 (2) IPC.

5.It is against this complaint that the petitioner had filed an application under Section 245 Cr.P.C, before the concerned Magistrate to discharge him of the offences. The substantial grounds raised by him were two in number; firstly being that the learned Magistrate erred in taking cognizance for of an offence under Section 211 IPC, since according to the learned counsel, it is only on the basis of a complaint by the Court, cognizance could be taken in view of Section 195(1)(b) and secondly, the Magistrate cannot take cognizance of an offence under Section 500 IPC, since a complaint to the police is absolutely privileged. However, the learned Magistrate dismissed the said application, against which the petitioner filed a revision before the Court of Sessions, which, after considering the elaborate contentions advanced by both parties, dismissed the revision