1. The facts, which have led to this petition, are as follows:
On the 9th of October 1925, a servant of petitioner, Ghaslawan, raised an alarm that a dacoity was being committed. The chaukidar of the village being informed that there was a dacoity in the Thakurs' quarters, went there not to Ghaslawan's house but to the house of certain other Thakurs. These Thakurs caused a report to be made at the thana that Ghaslawan Singh had made a false alarm of the dacoity. On the other hand, Ghaslawan, without going to the thana or making any report to the police, on the 10th October filed a petition in Court against certain persons, charging them with dacoity. That night, at about 11 p.m., on his return after making this complaint, he made a statement to the police in answer to questions put by the Sub-Inspector, saying that he had filed a complaint in Court and that he had been dacoited by certain persons.
2. The police upon investigation found that the complaint was false, and the Deputy Superintendent charged Ghaslawan Singh with having falsely charged Jagan Nath and others before the Sub-Inspector of Police with having committed dacoity, and he was put on his trial before the Sub-Divisional Officer of having committed an offence punishable under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code. Ghaslawan Singh went up in revision before the learned Sessions Judge and asked for the proceedings to be set aside on the ground that, Ghaslawan Singh having made a complaint to the Court, the information given by him to the police was information relating to proceedings in Court and therefore a complaint by the Court was necessary. The learned Judge having declined to interfere, Ghaslawan has come up here in revision. I am of opinion that in this case, as proceedings had been actually taken in Court and as Ghaslawan had made no report to the police but had answered questions put to him by the Sub-Inspector, it was not competent for the Deputy Superintendent of Police to proceed against Ghaslawan. Under Section 195 of the Criminal P.C., an offence punishable under Section 211, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, it is necessary for the initiation, of those proceedings that there should be a complaint in writing of such Court. It is urged by the learned Assistant Government Advocate that, when a person makes a statement to the police, he is making a report; and Ghaslawan was making a false charge before the Sub-Inspector of Police, when his statement was recorded, and he has referred me to the cases of Rati Ram v. Barhrna Jit AIR 1924 All 302 and Emperor v. Kashi Ram AIR 1924 All 779, respectively. In neither of these cases proceedings in Court had been taken prior to any mention of the facts to the Sub-Inspector. In fact, the reason for filing the complaint in Court instead of going to the police was told by Ghaslawan to be that he expected to get no satisfaction out of the police. Under these circumstances, it is impossible to say that, when Ghaslawan made his statement to the Sub-Inspector, he was moving the Sub-Inspector to do anything or that he was charging the 13 persons of an offence. He had already charged them, and the case was pending in the Court of the Magistrate.
3. I therefore set aside the proceedings against Ghaslawan. This, of course, will not prevent the initiation of any proceedings by the Magistrate, before whom Ghaslawan complained, if that Magistrate thinks fit to take action.