- (1.) THIS reference comes on the report of the District Magistrate, Chittorgarh, dated the 30th December, 1953.
(2.) THE facts leading to it are that one Kalu S/o Khema Regar filed a complaint against one Mst. Luni wife of Kishore Regar in the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Begu. It was alleged against her that she had expressed before some woman that his wife was a witch and that she was thus defamed. THE complainant produced only one witness Mst. Mangi in the court. She did not support his statement and therefore the trial court discharged the accused. THE accused had also made an application that the complaint against him was false and frivolous, that it was presented only to harass her and therefore the complainant should be ordered to pay her compensation of Rs. 100/- which she had spent on engaging a counsel. THE court enquired into this matter and ordered the complainant to pay Rs. 50/- as compensation to the accused under sec. 250 Cr. P. C. The learned District Magistrate has reported that the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Begu regarding the grant of compensation should be set aside. He has remarked that "the S. D. M. Begu had only come to the conclusion that the complaint is false as well as groundless. This is contradictory. " I am unable to follow what the learned District Magistrate means by saying that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate's finding is contradictory. To my mind, there is absolutely no contradiction in the Magistrate's remark that the complaint is false and groundless. A false complaint can be groundless and a groundless complaint is generally false. The learned District Magistrate has not pointed out what contradiction he has found in these two words. The learned District Magistrate has next remarked that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate "must have come to the definite conclusion that the complaint is false as well as frivolous or vexatious ". It may be pointed out that the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is written in Hindi and therefore he has not used the words "false, frivolous or vexatious" but if the learned District Magistrate had carefully gone though his judgment, he would have found that he has certainly used the Hindi equivalents for these terms. He has started in clear words: Ge bl urhts ij igqwps fd eqlrxhl us ,d vksjr ij mls rax djus dh uh;r ls>wbk o fujk/kkj bytke yxk;k gsa** Translated into English it would read as follows: " I have come to the conclusion that the complainant has made a false and baseless allegation against a woman in order to harass her. " Thus, he has clearly indicated that in his opinion the complaint was not only false but frivolous and vexatious. The learned District Magistrate has referred to the case of Ma Pu vs. Maung Tun Pe (1) (A. I. R. 1940 Rang. , 110) in support of his view that the complaint should not only be false but it should also be either frivolous or vexatious in order to enable a Magistrate to pass an order for compensation under sec. 250 Cr. P. C. So far as the principle laid down in this case is concerned, I am in respectful agreement with it because sec. 250 Cr. P. C. itself says that a Magistrate can pass an order for paying compensation if the accusation in his opinion is "false and either frivolous or vexatious. " It may however be pointed out that the case (1) cited by the learned District Magistrate has no application to the facts of the present case. In that case the Magistrate had simply passed an order in the following terms: " I have read the written explanation of Ma Pu and find it unsatisfactory. I therefore direct that the accused Ma Pu do pay compensation of Rs. 10/-, etc. " The Magistrate had not clearly indicated that the complaint was frivolous or vexatious and it was for that reason that the order of the Magistrate under sec. 250 Cr. P. C. was set aside. The circumstances of the present case are very different. After the accused was discharged, the Magistrate called upon the complainant) to show cause why he should not pay compensation to the accused. The Magistrate says that the complainant gave no satisfactory explanation and simply started that he had done so at the instance of Mst. Mangi. Mst. Mangi was already examined as a prosecution witness and did not support him. It was on these facts that the Magistrate came to the definite conclusion that the complainant had made a false accusation against the accused, that it was both frivolous and vexatious and that it was done simply to harass that lady. She had to engage a counsel since she was summoned by the court. Under the circumstances, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate did not commit any mistake in awarding compensation to Mst. Luni. 9. The reference is altogether misconceived and is therefore for rejected. . ;