Tirthankar Ghosh, J. - (1.) The revisional application has been preferred by challenging the proceedings being Complaint Case No.C-11540 of 2004 pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 11th Court, Kolkata under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code and all orders passed therein in connection with the said proceedings.
(2.) Mr. Kaushik Chatterjee, learned advocate, appearing for the petitioners draws the attention of this Court to the relevant part of the petition of complaint which was filed before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 11th Court, Kolkata for proper disposal of this case. Paragraph 6 and 12 of the said complaint are set out as follows:- "6. That in connection with the Shakespeare Sarani Police Station Case No.27 dated 6th February, 2002 under Section 120B/420/406 of the Indian Penal Code filed by the accused one Tarachand Mundra was arrested on 14th February, 2002 and subsequently bail was granted by the Learned Magistrate and your complaint and the three others who were named in the purported complaint were granted anticipatory bail in Criminal Misc Case Nos. 45 of 2002, 46 of 2002, 47 of 2002 and 48 of 2002 by the Learned City Sessions Court, Calcutta. Copies of the said order are annexed hereto and marked with Letter "B". .. 12. Your Complaint states that such false and frivolous criminal complaint filed by the accused person and involving the innocent complainant and also the wives of the complainant and another clearly establishes that with an intent to cause injury to your complainant and others by instituting such criminal proceeding on the false charges knowingly that there is no just or lawful ground for such proceeding as such your complainant submits that the accused persons has committed an offence under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code and cognizance may be taken of the said offence and necessary steps and or directions be passed accordingly." 2. According to Mr. Chatterjee, the learned Magistrate was pleased to take cognizance of the offence and subsequently by an order dated 19.11.2004 was pleased to issue process against the petitioners for commission of offence punishable under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code by grossly violating the provisions of Section 195(1)(b)(I). In support of his contention he relied upon a judgment rendered in the case of in Kamlapati Trivedi Vs. State of West Bengal, 1980 SCC(Cri) 347.
(3.) It is a settled position of law that Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code falls under the Chapter XI which relate to "of false evidence and offences against public justice". Chapter XIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down the condition requisite for initiation of proceedings. Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that :- "195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence. - (1) No Court shall take cognizance - .. (b)(i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely, Sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, except on the complaint in writing of that Court [or by such officer of the Court as that Court may authorise in writing in this behalf], or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate.";