Short Note : 1. Short facts giving rise to this application are that in proceedings section 145 Cr.P. Code between the applicants and the non-applicant No. 1, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ratlam by his final order dated 5-10-76, declared that the applicants were in actual possession of the disputed land, survey No. 53 situated in village Titri, Tahsil Ratlam, and restrained the non-applicant No. 1 from interfering with the possession of the applicants, till they were evicted in due course of law. This order was later on confirmed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Ratlam in Criminal revision No. 73 of 1976 on 7-7-77. According to complainant, inspite of the aforesaid prohibitory orders, the non-applicant No. 1, with the active aid and assistance of the non-applicants No. 2 to 4 disturbed the possession of the applicants over the disputed land and removed the 'Bajra' crop standing thereon, on 15-6-78 and also on 26-6-78. The applicants therefore moved an application under section 195 Cr.P. Code on 30-6-78, before the SDM. Ratlam, for making a complaint under section 188 IPC., against the non-applicants. As ordered by the learned SDM the police filed report on 4-7-78. This application was dismissed by the learned SDM on 2-8-78. The applicants challenged this order before the Court of Sessions, which by its order dated 11-9-78 passed in Criminal Revision No. 54 of 1978 allowed the same, set-aside the order passed by the learned SDM and remanded the case for re-considering the matter. Thereafter, the learned SDM by the impugned order directed the applicants, as well as the non-applicants to produce their evidence before him. Hence this Revision. Held : This section no where contemplates any application by a party. What the clause provides is that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence mentioned therein except on the complaint in writing of a public servant. In other words section 195(i) (a) does not confer any right on a party like the applicants to move the Magistrate to file a complaint, but only prohibits from taking cognizance of any offence mentioned therein, except on a complaint by a public officer. Consequently, exclusive jurisdiction is conferred upon the public servant to get himself satisfied before lodging complaint in writing, and for that purpose, if he directs the parties to produce the necessary material before him, the discretion exercised by him cannot be said to be improper or unjust. Consequently, exclusive jurisdiction is conferred upon the public servant to get himself satisfied before lodging complaint in writing, and for that purpose, if he directs the parties to produce the necessary material before him, the discretion exercised by him cannot be said to be improper or unjust. It is no doubt true that whether there has been disobedience to the order duly promulgated by public servant as contemplated by section 188 IPC has been done or not, is for the Magistrate concerned to decide the same when complaint is filed before him in accordance with section 195(1) Cr. P. Code. But simply because an aggrieved party moves an application to lodge the complaint does not necessarily deprive the Magistrate to get himself satisfied prima facie about the veracity or truth of the allegations made in the application and consequently, in the present case, the learned Magistrate cannot be said to have acted in such manner, which would require any interference by this Court in revision. The learned Magistrate has not finally disposed of the application filed by the applicants, therefore, no prejudice is likely to be caused to the applicants. The apprehension of the learned counsel for the applicants that by the mode adopted by the learned Magistrate, he will be virtually deciding the case on merits as contemplated by section 188 IPC does not appear to be well founded. 2. His next contention was that by this type of inquiry, delay is likely to be caused, with the result that by the time, the complaint in writing is filed by the learned Magistrate after inquiry, the limitation of 1 year as contemplated by section 468 (2) (b) Cr.P.C. will have expired and no cognizance could be taken on a complaint filed beyond the prescribed period as mentioned therein. But in my opinion this contention has no force as section 470 which speaks about exclusion of time in certain cases and section 473, which speaks of extension of period of limitation in certain class of such eventuality. Please See 1962 Cr.LJ p. 1421 V.P. Manual v. Kottakkat and AIR 1967 Patna p. 95, Buttan Modi v. Manichandra Singh 1963 Cr.LJ 1421 & AIR 1967 Pat 95 , relied on. Revision dismissed.