Venkatasubba Rao, J.
1. I am asked to quash the proceedings now pending before the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Udamalpet. They have taken a course which to me appears very curioua; and I think it may be useful to state the facts, which have given rise to this application, which is made on behalf of the accused. He attended a cattle show, at Tiruppur, and came back to his village, on or about the 11th June, 1923. Ha then presented a complaint to the Village Munsiff of Thenkumarapalayam, stating that at Tituppur he lost a revolver, and, owing to the fact that there was a huge crowd in the place, he was unable to give the information to the Police at Tiruppur. The Village Munsiff forwarded the complaint to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Udamalpefc, who in his turn transmitted it to the Sub-Inspector, Tiruppur. The latter officer investigated the case and arrived at the conclusion that no theft had been committed and that the information given was false. Under Section 173, Criminal Procedure Code, he sent a report of the investigation to the Magistrate of Palladam, who also arrived at the conclusion that the case was false. Thereupon, the Police Sub-Inspector of Udamalpet filed a charge-sheet before the Sub-Magistrate of Udamalper, charging the accused with giving false information to a public servant, under Section 182, Indian Penal Code. The Sub-Magistrate addressed a communication, dated 18th November, 1923, to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Pollachi, wherein the facts as stated above and the contention of the accused's pleader were set forth. The communication contains the following paragraph:
Further, the language of Section 182, Indian Penal Code, clearly points to the fact that 1 have no jurisdiction to try the case. For the Sub-Inspector at Udamalpet could not investigate the case, even if he had a mind to do. Therefore, he is not the public servant concerned, contemplated in the section. If you agree with me, I request that the case may be transferred to the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Palladam, for disposal. The records are herewith submitted, as noted in the margin.
2. The Sub-Divisional Officer made an endorsement, dated 18th November, 1923, which concludes thus:
Under the circumstances, the only thing that can be done is, I think, for you to return the charge-sheet to the Police, with an endorsement to the effect that you can take cognizance of the case, only on the complaint of the public servant concerned. It will be then for the Police to arrange to have a complaint laid by the public servant concerned, before a court having jurisdiction.
3. On receipt of this answer, the Sub-Magistrate of Udamalpet passed the following order:
Returned to the Inspector of Police of Udamalpet. The offence will be taken cognizance of only on the complaint of the public servant concerned.
4. Notwithstanding the fact that the complaint has thus been returned, the Sub-Inspector of Udamalpet approached the Sub-Divisional Officer directly, with a complaint similar to the one that was disposed of, by the order to which I have made reference. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate thereupon made the following endorsement on the complaint:
Taken on file, under Section 182, Indian Penal Code and transferred to the Sub-Magistrate, Udamalpet, for disposal according to law.
5. This endorsement bears the date 11th January, 1924. Thus, we find that the complaint, which was once directed to be returned by the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Udamalpet has come baok to him, through his superior officer, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The Stationary Sub-Magistrate was evidently perplexed as regards how he should act in this matter. On the previous occasion he made a cartain order. The complainant is the selfsame Sub-Inspector of Udamalpet who, the Sub-Magistrate had already decided, was not entitled to prefer the complaint. At this stage he seems to have had an interview with the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, and then we find the following communication, passing from the Sub-Magistrate to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, dated 6th February, 1924:
As per your oral orders, with regard to the prosecution of Sami Goundan, under Section 182, Indian Penal Code, I beg to submit herewith the records, in C.C., No. 70 of 1924, on the file of my Court. The pleader for the accused applied for an adjournment for a month with a view to get orders on some law points involved in the case. I have adjourned the case to 10th March, 1924.
6. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate takes upon himself the responsibility of advising the trial Magistrate, and his direction is embodied in the following order:
Returned to the Stationary Sub-Magistrate. The Queen-Empress v. Periannan (1882) 4 Mad. 241 deals with the point. It says that Section 182 does not apply where the public servant is only competent to pass on the information. If you can get the text of the ruling, you can look it up.
7. It is at this juncture that Mr. K.S. Jayarama Aiyar, on bebalf of the accused, has asked me to intervene and stop further proceedings. I do not think a case has been made out for my interference.
8. The course adopted by the trial Magistrate, as well as the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is, no doubt, the roughly unjustifiable. From a conviction by the Sub-Magistrate, an appeal lies to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. It is extraordinary that the, trial Magistrate should have 'chosen to consult the Appellate Magistrate, and it is equally extraordinary that the latter should have given advice on the matter. These acts are extremely irregular, and, in the interests of the administration of justice, it is hoped that there is no precedent for the very strange course these proceedings have taken. All this is perfectly true. But why should I assume that the Magistrate is now going to decide wrongly? And if ho holds that he has jurisdiction and the order turns out to be wrong, then the accused has his usual remedy. I am not at present concerned with the very-grave irregularities these proceedings have disclosed. The only question that now arises is : - Has a case been made out for the intervention of the High Court at this stage? The trial Magistrate is bound to give a decision on the points raised before him and I do not see why I should usurp his function and take upon myself the duty of deciding the question which ought to be decided by the Magistrate. I have not the least doubt that the High Court can quash proceedings at any stage on a proper case being made out. I have reviewed the subject at some length in a judgment I recently pronounced and I do not think any useful purpose will be served by my covering the same ground again. In the present case I am not satisfied that it is necessary to interfere at this stage in revision. I therefore dismiss this petition.