THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.6341 of 2008 ORDER: Heard the petitioners’ counsel and also the learned Additional Public Prosecutor who is appearing for both the respondents. The second respondent is the Sub-Inspector of Police, I Town Crime Police Station, Vijayawada. 2. In this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Code), the petitioners who are A-1 and A-2 in C.C.No.182 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, are seeking quashing of the said case. 3. The said case has been registered for offences punishable under Sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). On the last occasion when the matter was heard it was considered necessary to ascertain as to what is the stage of the case and a report was called for from the concerned court. The concerned court has now informed through its letter dated 03.12.2011 that trial has commenced in the case and P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and P.W.3 was examined in chief by 27.06.2008 and thereafter this quash petition has been filed. 4. The main plea of the petitioners is that the offence under Section 182 IPC is cognizable only on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate and similarly the offence under Section 211 IPC is cognizable only on the complaint in writing of that Court by such officer of the Court as that Court may authorize in writing in this behalf, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate. 5. A-1 and A-2 both are residents of Vijayawada. A-1 is said to be a contractor while A-2 is said to be a businessman in old brass, copper and iron articles etc. It is stated that on 16.06.2005 that A- 1, due to some previous disputes with the management of Sri Durga Malleswara Swamy Devasthanam, Vijayawada (temple), for some reason, informed one Karnati Jagadeesh of Vijayawada who is said to be a reporter of E-TV channel that copper sheets were stolen from the Vimana Gopuram of the temple and were taken to A-2 for sale by some unknown persons. Thereafter the said E-TV reporter is said to have enquired the matter with one Eragam Reddy Gopala Krishna Reddy, who was the Joint Commissioner & Executive Officer of that temple (EO), a public servant, who in turn expressed his innocence and the matter was published in the newspapers dated 16.06.2005 and also telecast through electronic media. The said news item caused uproar in the minds of public and devotees at Vijayawada and others it alerted the State officials. It is further stated that thereafter the EO gave a report in I Town Crime Police Station, Vijayawada, on 17.06.2005 about the alleged theft of copper sheets from the temple and it was registered as Crime No.132 of 2005 of the said police station for the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC. It is further stated in the charge sheet that one P.Raja Rao the then Sub-Inspector of police, CCS, Vijayawada, investigated into the matter and found that A-1 gave false information to the aforesaid E-TV reporter who in turn enquired the matter with the EO who later on being a public servant gave information to the police for investigation. The Sub- Inspector of Police ultimately concluded that A-1 gave false information to the aforesaid E-TV reporter and therefore he committed the offences punishable under Sections 182 and 211 IPC. Regarding the role of A-2, it is stated that he actively cooperated with A-1 in committing the above offences to cause embarrassment to the management of the temple. It is thus clear that the Sub-Inspector of Police of the I Town Crime police station, Vijayawada, on the above allegations laid charge sheet against A-1 and A-2 for the offences punishable under Sections 182 and 211 IPC. 6. Section 182 IPC deals with the offence of giving false information to any public servant knowing or believing it to be false, intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, such public servant (a) to do or omit anything which such public servant ought not to do or omit if the true state of facts respecting which such information is given were known by him, or (b) to use the lawful power of such public servant to the injury or annoyance of any person. Then Section 211 IPC deals with the offence of intending to cause injury to any person, institutes or causes to be instituted any criminal proceeding against that person, or falsely charges any person with having committed an offence, knowing that there is no just or lawful ground for such proceeding or charge against that person. 7. It should be noted that according to Section 195(1)(a)(i) of the Code, the offence under Section 182 IPC is cognizable only on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate and this means complaint has to be given by the public servant to whom such false information has been given. Then coming to the offence under Section 211 IPC, according to Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Code, it is cognizable only on the complaint in writing of that Court in relation to the judicial proceedings before which it is committed. In other words the offence under Section 182 IPC consists of giving false information to a public servant for taking action whereas the offence under Section 211 IPC consists of instituting a false prosecution on a false charge before a criminal court knowing it to be false. What should be noted is that according to Section 195(1)(a)(i) and Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Code, to repeat, both the above offences are cognizable only on the complaints in writing of the public servant concerned i.e. in the case of Section 182 IPC, the public servant to whom false information has been given for taking action and, in the case of Section 211 IPC, on the complaint of the Court in writing before which the offence is committed. 8. In the present case what happened is that the EO has given a report to the police and the Sub-Inspector of Police investigated into the case and charge sheeted A-1 and A-2 for the above offences which is contrary to the bar or procedure prescribed in Section 195 of the Code. It should also be noted that a ‘complaint’ as used in Section 195 of the Code means a ‘complaint’ as defined in Section 2(d) of the Code. According to Section 2(d), “complaint” means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report or charge sheet. This position shows that the concerned sub-inspector himself could have filed a complaint for the offence under Section 182 IPC and if Section 211 IPC was applicable the complaint could have been filed by the concerned authority prescribed under Section 195 of the Code. 9. In similar circumstances in Daulat Ram v. State of Punjab[1] the Supreme Court clearly held that the offence under Section 182 IPC has to be taken cognizance of only on the complaint of the concerned public servant and not otherwise that too on a police report and holding so the prosecution therein was quashed. The same principle applies to the offence under Section 211 IPC also. Thus cognizance of offences on a police charge sheet for the offences against the petitioner is contrary to law. 10. In these circumstances it follows that the very prosecution in C.C.No.182 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, was instituted contrary to the procedure prescribed in Section 195 of the Code and therefore it cannot be allowed to be continued. It is true that the learned Magistrate has by his report informed that the case has become a part-heard one now and that some of the witnesses have to be examined but that cannot be a ground to reject the very contention of the petitioners as the illegality of the cognizance order goes to the very root of the matter. 11. Accordingly this criminal petition is allowed and the C.C.No.182 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, is quashed. _______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 7th December 2011 CVRK [1] AIR 1962 SC 1206(1)