Jagat Narayan, J.
1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Balotra recommending that the proceedings under section 211 I. P. C. pending against Ram Lal and Bhanwar Lal applicants in the court of the First Class Magistrate Banner be quashed.
2. On 18-1-56 Bhanwar Lal lodged a report at Banner Police Station alleging that Joshi Tara Chand had committed theft by removing fuller's earth belonging to the firm Ram Lal and sons of which Bhanwar Lal was the Munim. On 6-8-56 he filed a criminal complaint under Section 379 I. P. C. against Joshi Tara Ohand in the court of the First Class Magistrate Banner on the same allegations. As a result of investigation the Station House Officer Banner Police Station found that the report lodged by Bhanwar Lal On 18-1-56 was false and filed a criminal complaint in the court of the First Class Magistrate Banner on 7-8-56 under section 211 I. P. C. against Bhanwar Lal as well as Ram Lal.
The petitioners raised an objection before the First Class Magistrate Banner to the effect that he could not take cognizance of an offence under Section 211 I. P. C. without a complaint by the court as provided under Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Magistrate overruled the objection. The petitioners thereupon filed an application to the Sessions Judge who has recommended that the proceedings pending in the court of the Magistrate against the applicants are without jurisdiction in the absence of a complaint by the court of the First Class Magistrate in which a criminal complaint under Section 379 I. P. C. was instituted by Bhanwar Lal.
3. In Prag Datt Tiwari v. Emperor, AIR 192S All 765 in which the facts were similar it was held that the offence committed under Section 211 I. P. C. by giving information to the police of a cognizable offence having been completed before a criminal complaint making the same allegations was filed in court it could not be said that the offence was committed in relation to a proceeding in court and therefore a complaint by the court under Section 195(1)(b) was not necessary. The Lahore, Madras, Patna, Bombay, Calcutta and Nagpur High Courts have taken a contrary view. They have held that where information to the police is followed by a complaint to the court based on the same allegations a complaint by the Court was necessary for the prosecution of the informant under Section 211 I. P. C. even in respect of a false charge made to the police.
I am in respectful agreement with the view taken by the majority of the High Courts. As a general rule any person having knowledge of the commission of an offence may set the law in motion by a complaint. To this general rule there are some exceptions. Some of these exceptions are contained in Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The object of the section is to prevent improper or reckless prosecution for offences in connection with the administration of public justice. It is aimed at giving protection to parties against vexatious or frivolous prosecution. A court of law is in a better position than a police officer to judge whether or not it is expedient in the public interest to prosecute a person. It is therefore desirable that when the information to the police is followed by a criminal complaint in a court of law the informant should not be prosecuted under Section 211 I. P. C. without a complaint by the court.
4. I accordingly accept the reference and quash the proceedings pending against the applicants under Section 211 I. P. C.