O R D E R

The revision petitioner herein challenges the order of the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore in Crl.M.P.No. 8595 of 2021 dated 11.10.2021 by which the trial Court has taken cognizance of the offence in terms of the complaint of the respondent.

2.A brief note of the facts that led to the filing of this petition may be stated:-

(a)According to the revision petitioner, his son had purchased a certain property some 18 years prior to 2018, that after obtaining necessary approval from the authorities concerned, he has put up a residential building therein.

(b)There is a temple near by, of which a certain Kumar is the priest. Due to certain enmity between Kumar and the complainant, at the instigation of Kumar a certain Saranya, an advocate, issued notices claiming that the property is a temple property and also made use of it to blackmail the revision petitioner along with her father, the respondent herein and also her mother Ambika.

(c)There are certain ancillary proceedings between the parties which may not be very germane for the present. While so, the revision petitioner preferred a complaint to initiate action against the aforesaid temple priest Kumar, the respondent herein K.P.Chandrasekaran, along with his wife Ambika and the aforesaid Sharanya.

(d)This private complaint was taken on record by the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore in Crl.M.P.No.1254 of 2019 and Vide Order dated 06.09.2019 it dismissed the same.

(e)Pursuant to the same, the present respondent had preferred a complaint in Crl.M.P.No.8595 of 2021 against the revision petitioner herein alleging that the previous complaint which the revision petitioner had filed in Crl.M.P.No.1254 of 2019 was a false complaint, that the revision petitioner and others, who are arrayed as party accused in second mentioned Crl.M.P.No.8595 of 2021 alleging that he along with others have committed an offense under Section 211 of IPC. This was taken cognizance of by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.

3. The accused in Crl.M.P.8595 of 2021 challenges the order of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of commission of an offence under Section

211 of Cr.P.C in this revision.

4.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner's arguments are two fold; (a)If an offence under Section 211 is committed, it is for the Court to initiate action under 340 Cr.P.C, which should then satisfy the precondition under Section 195 Cr.P.C.

(b)Nowhere in the Order in Crl.M.P.No.1254 of 2019 has the learned Magistrate indicated that the complaint preferred by the revision petitioner was a false complaint.

He relied on the authority of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Crl.A.No.45 of

1972 dated 13.12.1978.

5.The respondent submitted :

(a)that inasmuch as the complaint preferred by the respondent is a private complaint under section 200 Cr.P.C, there is no need for the Court to resort to 340 Cr.P.C and 195 Cr.P.C. He relied on SLP.Nos.

4161 to 4164 of 2008 dated 14.11.2011.

(b)After taking cognizance, the learned Magistrate has taken on the complaint to his file in C.C.No.7656 of 2021 and therefore, any revision against an Order taking cognizance is not maintainable.

6. In response, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that he has not even been served with the summons of the case by the learned Magistrate and hence revision is maintainable

7. The allegation in Crl.M.P.No. 8595 of 2021, now pending in C.C.7656 of 2021 is that the revision petitioner has made a false statement in his Crl.M.P.No.1254 of 2019 seek their prosecution under Sec.211 IPC. As per Sec.195 Cr.P.C., a private complaint for an offence under Sec.211 IPC is not maintainable. Sec.195 Cr.P.C. Reads:

“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 :

(a)(i) of any offence punishable under Section 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or (ii) of any a