JUDGMENT J.M.L. Sinha, J. - Through this application the Petitioner prays that the complaint filed by the Distt. Judge, Bijnor against him and the entire proceedings thereunder may be quashed. 2. Very briefly stated the facts leading to this application are that a process-server belonging to the staff of the Civil Court, Bijnor, was assaulted by the Petitioner when he went there in order to effect service of a process. A report in the first instance was made by the process-server to the Munsif-Magistrate, who forwarded a note to the Distt. Judge and the latter in his administrative capacity as a Distt. Judge, filed a complaint for the prosecution of the Petitioner u/s 332 and other cognate offences. 3. The ground raised by learned Counsel for the Applicant challenging the validity of the proceedings is twofold: (1) that it was not open to the Distt. Judge to file a complaint except in accordance with Sections 476 and 196 Code of Criminal Procedure, and since the offence specified in the complaint do not fall under either of the two sections, the complaint was illegal; and (2) that the learned Magistrate, who has entertained the complaint, proceeded with the case without examining the Distt. Judge u/s 200 Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. To my mind a Distt. Judge, as local head of the department, has an administrative capacity besides that of a Court. In the instant case an employee of the Civil Court complained to the Distt. Judge through the Munsif that he had been beaten when he was discharging his public duties. The Distt. Judge, purporting to act in his administrative capacity, filed the complaint. Section 476 Code of Criminal Procedure or Section 195 Code of Criminal Procedure imposes a restriction with regard to the institution of a complaint for those offences alone that are specified therein. It is a well-known principle of criminal law that for an offence about which no such restriction exists any person can set the law in motion. I fail to find any provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure which could prevent the Distt. Judge from filing a complaint for the earlier mentioned offences, in his administrative capacity. Since Sections 476 Code of Criminal Procedure and 195 Code of Criminal Procedure did not apply, no inquiry was mandatory before the filing of the complaint. 5. I fail to find any provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure which could prevent the Distt. Judge from filing a complaint for the earlier mentioned offences, in his administrative capacity. Since Sections 476 Code of Criminal Procedure and 195 Code of Criminal Procedure did not apply, no inquiry was mandatory before the filing of the complaint. 5. Learned Counsel for the Applicant referred me to a number of cases in support of his argument. I, however, find that none of them are applicable to the facts of this case. In Emperor Vs. Raja Kushal Pal Singh, AIR 1931 All 443 the only point that was referred for answer by the Special Bench was whether in the circumstances of that case Section 195(1)(c) was applicable and the complaint by the Court was necessary. The question was answered in the negative. All that is said in the report is by way of reasoning that led to the conclusion. I find no analogy in this case to the facts of the case before me. 6. In case Ambika Sahi v. Emperor 1947 ALJ 263 a complaint Under Sections 40S and 426 IPC was filed by the Judge Small Cause Court as a Court. It was in that context that this Court said that-- no Court functioning as a Court is authorised to make a complaint except in accordance with the procedure laid down by the law in Section 476, Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. I have already said that in the instant case there is nothing to show that the Distt. Judge acted as a Court while filing the complaint. It may also not be out of place to mention that a Judge Small Cause Court in a district has no administrative capacity. It is only the Distt. Judge who is in charge of the administration of the civil court of the district. It could not, therefore, be said in the case of Ambika Sahi v. Emperor (supra) that the complaint was filed by the Judge Small Cause Court in his administrative capacity. Further, despite the above, this Court said that even if the complaint filed by the Judge Small Cause Court could not be treated as a complaint, it could be treated as information u/s 190(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, therefore, the proceedings pending in the court could not be quashed. Further, despite the above, this Court said that even if the complaint filed by the Judge Small Cause Court could not be treated as a complaint, it could be treated as information u/s 190(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, therefore, the proceedings pending in the court could not be quashed. I thus find nothing in the report of this case as well which may lend a ay help to the Applicant. 8. In Bajrang Marwari and Others Vs. Durga Prasad Sao, AIR 1937 Patna 31 it was pointed out that a complaint could not be ordered to be filed by the Distt. Judge for an offence u/s 183 IPC. On a perusal of the entire report, however, I find that what was held in the case was that the complaint could not be filed by the Distt. Judge as and Court. The point that the complaint could be filed by the Distt. Judge in his administrative capacity was not negatived. The following observation may be relevant in this connection. It is urged for the Grown and as against the interference of this Court that the Distt. Judge being a public servant to whom the peon is subordinate had an independent power of his own u/s 195(1)(a) of the Code to make a complaint, and that if a Distt. Judge makes a complaint under the provision the order is an administrative one. That may be but the Distt. Judge in the present case purports to act a3 a Court. He says: This Court will make a complaint u/s 476-B, Code of Criminal Procedure which the subordinate Court might have made u/s 476. From the above it will appear that the ratio of the case was that the Distt. Judge acting as a court could not file the complaint. This case, therefore, is also of no help to the Petitioner. 9. Another case to which reference was made is Bhagwan Das Vs. Saddiq Ahmad, AIR 1925 All 318 . It is a brief judgment containing no discussion. It is, however, apparent on a perusal of the entire case that in this case too action was taken u/s 476 Code of Criminal Procedure and it was in that context that the Court said that the proceedings were irregularly instituted on a report. This case has absolutely no bearing on the point whether a Distt. It is, however, apparent on a perusal of the entire case that in this case too action was taken u/s 476 Code of Criminal Procedure and it was in that context that the Court said that the proceedings were irregularly instituted on a report. This case has absolutely no bearing on the point whether a Distt. Judge in his official capacity can or cannot make a complaint. 10. Reference was also made by learned Counsel for the Applicant to the cases: Moolchand R. Thackar v. Smt. Kamla Bai AIR 1957 Pat 166 and Anuplal Biswas Vs. Davanath Jha, AIR 1967 Patna 264 . In the former case all that has been said is that a Court has no jurisdiction to make a complaint u/s 476(1) in respect of an offence not mentioned in Section 195(1)(b)(c). There can absolutely be no quarrel with this proposition. I have, however, already said that in the case before me action was not taken by the Distt. Judge as a Court but in his official and administrative capacity. In the other case a complaint was filed for the prosecution of a party u/s 20 of the Bihar Money Lenders Act and the Court held that a complaint could be filed by civil court only in respect of an offence mentioned in Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 195(1) and that it had no power to file a complaint u/s 20 of the Bihar Money Lenders Act. It will thus appear that the emphasis in this case is also on the power of the court and not public servant. 11. No other case has been cited on the side of Petitioner. 12. I, therefore, find that the complaint filed by the Distt. Judge does not suffer from any illegality warranting its being quashed. 13. Coming to the second point, learned Counsel urged that if the Distt. Judge did not file the complaint in his capacity as a Court it was necessary for the Magistrate to have examined him u/s 200 Code of Criminal Procedure. Clause (aa) of Section 200 Code of Criminal Procedure, however, states that when the complaint is made in writing by a Public servant acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties the examination of the complainant is not necessary. The least that can be said in the instant case is that prima facie the Distt. Clause (aa) of Section 200 Code of Criminal Procedure, however, states that when the complaint is made in writing by a Public servant acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties the examination of the complainant is not necessary. The least that can be said in the instant case is that prima facie the Distt. Judge purported to act in the discharge of his official duties when he filed the complaint for the prosecution of the Applicant on the ground that he had assaulted the process-server belonging to the staff of the civil court. It cannot therefore be said that the Magistrate, in not examining the Distt. Judge u/s 200 Code of Criminal Procedure, has committed an illegality warranting interference by this Court at this stage. 14. This petition therefore is absolutely devoid of substance and is rejected. Application rejected.