1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Gorakhpur against the order of commitment by a Magistrate, committing Gaya Teli for trial under Section 211, I.P.C. The accused Gaya Teli made a report in the thana against Gopal Singh and other persons of having murdered his father Krishna. The police found that report was false, and no proceedings in Court were instituted on it. The commitment order states that as the report relates to a capital offence so the case is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions and the Magistrate accordingly commits the accused to the Court of Sessions. It has been held by this Court in Emperor v. Jagmohan  11 Cr. L.J. 54 that:
where the offence under Section 211, I.P.C., consists in giving false information to the police and the case does not go further than a police inquiry the offence falls within para. 1, Section 211, I.P.C., and not within para. 2 even though the charge made in the report is one of murder. An offence under para. 2, Section 211, is triable by the Magistrate and the maximum penalty is two years' rigorous imprisonment, and that is a penalty which can be imposed by the Magistrate.
2. Accordingly following the ruling quoted I quash the commitment to the Sessions Court.
3. The next matter contained in the letter of reference is that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence, because the offence had been committed in relation to a proceeding in Court within the meaning of Section 195(b), and there was no complaint of such Court before the Magistrate, as contemplated by that clause. The Sessions Judge considered therefore that without such a complaint the proceedings of the Magistrate were void. Now the offence charged under Section 211, I.P.C., relates to the making of a false report in the police station on 26th May 1929 against one Gopal Singh. No proceedings in Court took place against Gopal Singh. Accordingly it appears to me that it cannot be said that the offence was committed in relation to a proceeding in Court. Further without an application to the Magistrate it does not appear to me that the Magistrate would have been correct in acting under Section 476, Criminal P.C., and in sending for Gaya Teli for making an inquiry from him in regard to the report which Gaya Teli had made in the thana. It does not appear to me that the language of Section 476 contemplates such action on the part of a Magistrate. But even if the view of the learned Sessions Judge were correct and the case did come under Section 195(b), then the Magistrate would have been acting correctly under Section 478(1), because he is apparently the Magistrate who is now in charge of the Sub-Division in succession to the Magistrate before whom the case for murder was the subject of an inquiry, and he has made a commitment to the Sessions Court. But I do not consider that the case does come under Section 195(1)(b), and accordingly it was correct for the Magistrate to proceed on the report of the prosecuting inspector, bringing to his notice the complaint which Gaya Teli had made to the police. I may note that the ruling Emperor v. Jagmohan  11 Cr.L.J. 54 to which the learned Sessions Judge has made a reference was a precisely similar case in which Jagmohan was prosecuted for giving false information to the police, and there was no complaint mentioned under Section 195(1)(b), but it is stated that the persons accused were charged before the Magistrate with the offence under Section 211, I.P.C.
4. Accordingly I pass the order in the present case that the commitment is quashed, and I direct that the Magistrate do proceed with the trial of this case under Section 211, I.P.C., part 1, against Gaya Teli according to law.