Cognizance of offences under Section 211, IPC requires a complaint by the concerned Court or a Court superior to it, as per Section 195 of the CrPC.

JUDGMENT :

A. Pasayat, J. - Petitioner's grievance is that learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhubaneswar (in short, 'JMFC') was not justified in taking cognizance of offence punishable under Sections 211 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code. 1860 (in short, 'IPC') During trial petitioner prayed before learned JMFC in ICC Case No. 112 of 1987 to quash the cognizance so far as it relates to said offences. Learned JMFC rejected the prayer on the ground that making of such prayer was out of question at t e stage of trial.

2. Mr. B. Sahu learned counsel for petitioner submitted that while taking cognizance of the offence under Sec 211, IPC, learned SDJM did not keep in view Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, 'the Code'). Further, according to him, ingredients necessary to constitute an offence punishable u/s 500 are squarely absent. Learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that cognizance was taken in October, 1987. There has been considerable delay in disposal of the matter due to dilatory methods adopted by the petitioner who jumped the bail and after long prolongation, he appeared and was sent to custody and was subsequently released on bail. It is stated that one witness has already been examined, and at this belated stage question relating to reconsideration of cognizance does not arise.

3. So far as cognizance relatable to the offence punishable u/s 211, IPC is concerned Clause (b) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 195 of the Code is relevant. The said provision so far as applicable to the facts of the case reads as follows:

"195 . Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence-(1)No Court shall take cognizance-

xx xx xx

(b) (i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely. Sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228. when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or

xx xx xx

(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in Sub-clause (i) or Sub-clause (ii)

except on the complaint in writing of that Court, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate."

4. As a general rule any person having knowledge of commission of an offence may set law in motion by a complaint, even though he is not personally interested or affected by the offence. But there are exceptions to this general rule, as evident from Section 195 and 196 of the Code. Section 195 is one of the sections which prohibits a Court from taking cognizance of certain offences unless and until a complaint has been made by some particular authority or person. Other sections with similar prescriptions are Sections 196 to 199 of the Code. Section 195 of the Code has been enacted as a safeguard against irresponsible and reckless prosecutions by private individuals in respect of offences which relate to the administration of justice, and contempt of lawful authority. Section 211, IPC relates to false charge of offence made with intent to cause injury. Since the accusations in the complaint related to a proceeding in a Court, the learned SDJM was not justified in taking cognizance of offence punishable u/s 211, IPC in absence of the complaint of the concerned Court, or a Court to which that Court is subordinate. The order dated 20-10-1987 taking cognizance in respect of offence punishable u/s 211,IPC is, therefore, vitiated.

5. So far as the plea relating to absence of essential ingredients of Section 600, IPC, is concerned, it is submitted that since no cognizance can be taken in respect of Section 211.1PC in the absence of Court, complaint by the concerned Court or by a Court superior to it, cognizance cannot be taken in respect of an alleged connected offence. It is true that it is not permissible