JUDGMENT G. Kumar, J. - The applicant was convicted and sentenced u/s 182 of the IPC to pay a fine of Rs. 60/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1-1/2 months. 2. The applicant had made a report u/s 307 IPC against Deoki Nandan, Jagdish, Suraj Prasad and Govind Das at the P.S. Kot-wali, Orai, alleging that he had seen one Suraj Prasad son of Nathu coming with a gun and smoking Biris, whereupon the applicant had asked him not to smoke Biri while carrying a gun. Suraj Prasad is said to have disliked this remark with the result that there was exchange of hot words between them. Two other persons Deoki Nandan and Govind Das were alleged to have arrived and asked Jagdish to bring a smaller gun (i.e. revolver or pistol). He brought the same and fired one round from that gun towards the applicant, as a result whereof he fell down on the ground and the bullet whizzed him across. Thereafter the applicant took shelter in his aunt's house, but was surrounded by Deoki Nandan and others. On investigation, it was found that one Chintoley was blessed with a son and so Deoki Nandan and Suraj Prasad had gone there in order to celebrate the birth of a male child by firing the gun. While he was passing the house of the applicant, the latter raised an objection against smoking Biri. This resulted in exchange of hot words, but the matter ended then and there on the intervention of the villagers. It was further found on investigation that the allegation of the applicant that shots were fired to kill him was baseless and false. So, instead of submitting a chargesheet against the persons complained of u/s 307 IPC the Inspector Incharge Kotwali submitted a final report to the Magistrate and chargesheeted the applicant u/s 182 IPC. 3. The applicant admitted having lodged a report in the Kotwali and re-iterated that the facts mentioned therein were correct. 4. The learned Magistrate, on consideration of the entire evidence produced before him, held that the allegations of the applicant were fake and as such, the applicant was tried summarily and convicted and sentenced as stated at the outset. 5. 3. The applicant admitted having lodged a report in the Kotwali and re-iterated that the facts mentioned therein were correct. 4. The learned Magistrate, on consideration of the entire evidence produced before him, held that the allegations of the applicant were fake and as such, the applicant was tried summarily and convicted and sentenced as stated at the outset. 5. A preliminary objection has been taken by the learned Counsel for the applicant that in as much as the applicant had lodged a FIR, against Deoki Nandan and others for his attempted murder, u/s 307, IPC, which was a congnizable offence, the mere filing of the report under that section amounts to institution of criminal proceedings within the meaning of Section 211 IPC and, as such, the applicant could have been convicted only under that section and not u/s 182 IPC. In support of his contention, the applicant's Advocate has relied upon the following authorities. Emperor Vs. Johri ; Nagayya and others in re (2) 62 (2) CrI LJ 719). In the above cases it was held that 'A man who sets the criminal law in motion by making a false charge to the Police of a cognizable offence institutes criminal proceedings within the meaning of Section 211 IPC 6. It is thus clear that, if at all, the applicant could have been convicted u/s 211 and not u/s 182 of IPC. 7. There is yet another aspect of the matter, namely, that the applicant was tried and convicted summarily u/s 182 IPC. That was possible because the offence u/s 182 IPC is punishable with a sentence of imprisonment which may extend to six moths or with fine, which may extend to Rs. 1,000/- or with both. But, as found above, the applicant could have been convicted only u/s 211 IPC, which is punishable with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment for seven years or upwards and shall also be liable to fine. The offence being of serious nature it has been excluded from summary trials u/s 260 Code of Criminal Procedure. 1,000/- or with both. But, as found above, the applicant could have been convicted only u/s 211 IPC, which is punishable with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment for seven years or upwards and shall also be liable to fine. The offence being of serious nature it has been excluded from summary trials u/s 260 Code of Criminal Procedure. Moreover, where information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence is given to an officer in charge of a police station and after the investigation, he submits a final report u/s 173 Code of Criminal Procedure to the Magistrate concerned, who accepts the same, it is that Magistrate who is required to file a complaint in respect of an offence u/s 211 IPC. Reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the applicant on the following authorities: State v. Vipra Khimji Gan-garam (3) (AIR 1952 Sau. 67); Bajaji Appaji Kote v. Emperor (4) (AIR 1146 Bom 7). In the Saurasthra case supra, it has been held: Where information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence is given to an officer in charge of a Police station u/s 154, Code of Criminal Procedure and is followed by investigation by him, he is bound u/s 173 (1) to forward his final report to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a Police report. An order passed by the Magistrate on such report would dispose of the complaint made to the police. That order, is not merely an administrative order but a judicial order of the Court. Therefore, if the complaint is held to be false and a B summary is issued, the offence u/s 211 IPC will have to be alleged to have been committed by the complainant in relation to the proceedings in the Magistrate's Court which ended in an issue of the B summary. The Magistrate passing an order on a final report of the police sent after the investigation u/s 173 Code of Criminal Procedure should be deemed to be a Court passing a judicial order disposing of the information given to the police. Therefore, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is required to "file a complaint in respect of the offence u/s 211 IPC and in the absence of such a complaint the proceedings launched against the opponent before the Magistrate are without jurisdiction. 8. Therefore, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is required to "file a complaint in respect of the offence u/s 211 IPC and in the absence of such a complaint the proceedings launched against the opponent before the Magistrate are without jurisdiction. 8. Thus the summary trial of the applicant u/s 182 IPC was illegal inasmuch as it should have been a regular trial u/s 211 IPC, Moreover, proceedings under the last named section could have started only on the complaint of the Magistrate concerned, which has not been done. 9. Accordingly, I allow this revision, set aside the conviction and sentence of the applicant. However, in view of the fact that the alleged offence of making a false report was committed on 12.4.1962--almost about three years ago--it would not be in the interest of justice to prosecute him now u/s 211 IPC. The proceedings are, therefore, quashed as a whole. The fine, it paid, shall be refunded to the applicant.