1. This reference has been made by the Sessions Judge of Manbhum-Sambalpur asking us to set aside the proceedings taken under Section 476 of the Cr PC, against one Makund Patel for his prosecution under S. 211 and 182, I.P.C, for preferring a false charge of dacoity before the police. It appears that after the police reported the information given toy the complainant to be maliciously false a, notice was issued upon the complainant by the Deputy Magistrate of Sambalpur calling upon him to show cause why he should not be prosecuted for making a false charge. The complainant appeared and filed a petition before the Deputy Magistrate asking for a judicial inquiry. On 9th January, 1917 the Deputy Magistrate found the complainant absent and called upon him to appear and substantiate his case by evidence. On 20th January the Deputy Magistrate examined the complainant on oath, but the complainant had no evidence to adduce and was unable to take any steps to prove his case. The Deputy Magistrate then dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Cr PC, declared it to be maliciously false, and sent the complainant to the Sub-divisional Magistrate for trial for an offence under S. 211, I.P.C The language used by the learned Deputy Magistrate is sorhewhat inaccurate, for he says in one part of his order that he sanctions the prosecution of the complainant. It is quite clear however that the Deputy Magistrate intended to proceed under Section 476 of the Cr PC, and not under S. 195. The complainant thereupon moved the Sessions Judge of Manbhum-Sambalpur in appeal, but that officer finding that no appeal lay against an order under Section 476 of the Cr PC, has treated the application as one for revision and referred the case to us under Section 438 of the Cr PC.
2. The main ground upon which a reference is made is that the application of the complainant to the Deputy Magistrate asking for a judicial inquiry was not a complaint and that although it was open to the Deputy Magistrate taking cognizance of the police report to direct a prosecution under S. 211, I.P.C, upon the police report itself, that procedure has not been followed in this case and that the proceedings purporting to be founded upon a judicial proceeding before the Deputy Magistrate are without jurisdiction inasmuch as there were no judicial proceedings in that Court. Now whether the learned Deputy Magistrate in taking proceedings under S. 476, had jurisdiction, depends upon whether the matter came under his cognizance in the course of judicial proceedings. If the application made by the complainant for a judicial inquiry was a complaint, then there were judicial proceedings of which the learned Deputy Magistrate was seized.
3. I am unable to appreciate the grounds on which the learned Sessions Judge considers that the application of the complainant is not a complaint within Section 4(h) of the Cr PC. It has been repeatedly held that applications of this nature are complaints and that the proper mode of dealing with them is to examine the complainant on oath and to dispose of the application as a complaint under the procedure indicated in Ch. 16 Code of Criminal Procedure. In my opinion the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is contrary to law and unsupported by any authority and the reference must be disallowed. The proceedings against the complainant are good in law and the prosecution will proceed.
V.S/R.K
4. Reference disallowed.