1. When criminal Courts have large powers to punish adequately a complainant who brings a false complaint to it is to be regretted that such a Court should get rid of a complainant whom he believes to be false by methods not warranted by law. In the present case the complainant Ram Das had given considerable trouble to a Court presided over by an Honorary Magistrate who, however, took no steps to punish him but discharged the persons accused by him of certain offences. Subsequently Ram Das complained in the Court of the Joint Magistrate of Meerut who dismissed his complaint not because he believed it to be false, but on the ground that the complaint was barred by reason of the previous discharge of the persons accused by him. The Joint Magistrate was most certainly wrong, as was observed by the Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge, admitting this wrong view of the Joint Magistrate, proceeded to dismiss the application for revision on the ground that he understood from the arguments of the accused's pleader that the dispute was of a civil rather than of a criminal nature. Unfortunately the learned Judge did not state in his judgment nor in any other proceeding what the arguments were on which he came to the conclusion which he did. Ram Das has come here and this Court is compelled to send his complaint back to the Joint Magistrate for further enquiry. Only if the Magistrate had recorded under Section 202, Criminal P.C., the statements of the complainant's witnesses, and come to some definite conclusion on the complaint thereupon, all this subsequent litigation would have been avoided. Even where accused persons do not desire to take action under Section 211, I.P.C., a Court of law has authority to complain against a false complainant under Section 182, I.P.C., which is contained in Ch. 10 relating to contempt of the lawful authority of public servants. So far no Court has pronounced any definite decision on the complaint of the complainant Ram Das. The orders of the two subordinate Courts, dated 3rd August 1927, and 21st November, are hereby set aside and the complaint is returned to the Joint Magistrate of Meerut to be disposed of according to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On receipt of these proceedings the Joint Magistrate is requested to issue a notice to Ram Das to appear in this Court on a fixed date with his witnesses to substantiate his complaint.
2. The procedure directed by the Code of Criminal Procedure is that the joint Magistrate, after listening to the evidence of the witnesses, may record a finding that he does not believe the complaint for reasons to be stated by him and thereupon dismiss the complaint under the provisions of Section 203, Criminal P.C. If however he considers that a prima facie case has been made out he will issue summonses to the persons against whom he believes that such a case is made out. The law gives him authority to proceed against the complainant Ram Das by a complaint either under Section 182, if he finds the complaint to be entirely false, without calling upon the accused to put in an appearance or under Section 211, I.P.C., if on a proper trial the complaint is found to be false. The procedure laid down by law has to be adopted in order to dispose of this complaint.