Cognizance under Sections 182 and 211 IPC requires compliance with Section 195 CrPC.

The petitioners purchased two flats from Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 under registered sale deeds dated 6 and 10 June 2009.

They alleged that the sellers had concealed an existing mortgage over the property and complained of cheating; an FIR under Sections 420/34 IPC was registered on the Magistrate’s direction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

The investigation found material indicating that Petitioner No. 1 knew of the loan and mortgage, including a 2010 letter to the bank concerning the outstanding amount.

The police filed a cancellation report and a Kalandra under Sections 182/211 IPC, alleging that the petitioners had knowingly made a false complaint.

The Magistrate accepted the cancellation report, dismissed the protest petition, and took cognizance of the alleged offences under Sections 182/211 IPC. The petitioners challenged that order under Section 528 BNSS.

1. Whether the Magistrate was justified in accepting the cancellation report and dismissing the protest petition

2. Whether the Magistrate could take cognizance of offences under Sections 182/211 IPC on the Investigating Officer’s Kalandra, without compliance with Section 195 Cr.P.C.

Section 195(1)(a) Cr.P.C. bars cognizance of offences under Sections 172–188 IPC, including Section 182, except on a written complaint by the public servant concerned or an administratively superior public servant; non-compliance renders the proceedings without jurisdiction.

*Saloni Arora v. State (NCT of Delhi)*, (2017) 3 SCC 286, para. 29.

Section 195(1)(b)(i) Cr.P.C. bars cognizance of an offence under Section 211 IPC when alleged to have been committed “in, or in relation to,” a court proceeding, unless on a written complaint by the court concerned or an authorised officer.

*Abdul Rehman v. K.M. Anees-Ul-Haq*, (2011) 10 SCC 696, paras. 33–34.

On a final report, the Magistrate must independently consider the material; a protest petition need not automatically be treated as a complaint.

*Mukhtar Zaidi v. State of Uttar Pradesh*, 2024 INSC 316.

The Court found no basis to interfere with acceptance of the cancellation report.

Although the mortgage predated the sale deeds, that fact alone did not establish cheating; the investigation material—including Petitioner No. 1’s role in introducing Respondent No. 2 to the bank, the transfer of funds to Petitioner No. 2’s account, the Branch Manager’s statement, and Petitioner No. 1’s 2010 letter—contradicted the claim that the petitioners first learned of the mortgage in 2013.

However, the order did not establish that the Kalandra satisfied Section 195(1)(a) for Section 182 IPC.

As to Section 211 IPC, the alleged false complaint had also been pursued before the Magistrate under Section 156(3), and the Kalandra itself alleged falsehood before both the police and the Court.

The allegation therefore related to judicial proceedings, attracting Section 195(1)(b)(i); the Investigating Officer’s Kalandra alone could not support cognizance.

It set aside the order taking cognizance of Sections 182/211 IPC and the proceedings arising from the Kalandra, for non-compliance with the statutory bar under Section 195 Cr.P.C.

The petition was dismissed subject to that limited modification.