P.A. Nallaperumal vs P.R. Muthaiah

K.N. Mudaliyar, J.—The petitioner seeks to revise the order of the District Magistrate, Tirunelveli, passed in Crl.M.P. No. 182 of 1972

rejecting the preliminary ground raised in the said petition that the offence might fall u/s 182 I.P.C. and not u/s 211 I.P.C. From the averments in

the complaint it is seen that the present petitioner (Nellaperumal) sent a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli, at Palayamcottai

falsely charging the complainant with having intimidated him and threatened to shoot him with a revolver in his possession. Mr. Martin, learned

Counsel appearing for the petitioner, argued that the language of Section 211 would require the registration of the complaint, investigation following

the registration of the first information report and a referred notice to the complainant Nellaperumal. I do not think that there is any warrant or basis

for such an argument in the light of the terms of Section 211 I.P.C. All that this section requires is the proof of (1) intention to cause injury to any

person and (2) initiation of any criminal proceeding against the respondent herein. The other ingredient seems to be false charge against the

respondent Muthiah with having committed an of-fence knowing that there is no lust or lawful ground for such proceeding or ''charge. The

petitioner knows best what he has complained against Muthiah in the complaint sent by him to the police authorities on 3.10.1971. It was open to

Him to either produce a copy of the complaint or to summon the original Complaint petition sent by him, and on the basis of the averments found

therein it was open to him to have contended that the offence might fall u/s 182 I.P.C. rather than u/s 211 I.P.C. He has not chosen to do so. This

Court, as was the case with the trial Court, is left with the averments in the complaint filed by Muthiah. The averments contained in paragraph 5 of

the complaint petition filed by Muthiah would prima facie make out an offence u/s 211 I.P.C. In fairness to the accused, I am saying that this

observation of mine would not fetter the trial court in coming to the conclusion that the offence might be one under Section182 I.P.C. for, I have

stated that averments in the complaint petition make out an offence u/s 211 I.P.C., prima facie alone. The disposal of this petition shall not be

construed to the prejudice of the accused Nellaperumal. With these observations, the petition is dismissed.