Judgment S. S. Hasan, J. 1. The petitioner in this application is being proceeded against for having committed an offence under Sec.211 of the Indian Penal Code and Rule 43 of the Defence of India Rules. It is said that the petitioner had filed a complaint in the Court of Learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, bhabhua on 13.3.1976 under Sec.342 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was examined on 19.3.1976 on solemn affirmation and though the witnesses were present, they were not examined. It appears that the complaint petition was dismissed by a considered order passed by the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhabhua, dated 15.4.1976 and by that very order the court directed the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be prosecuted under Sec.211 of the Indian Penal Code and Rule 43 of the defence of India Rules. The cause was shown by the petitioner which was rejected and by his order dated 21.4.1976 the Learned Sub-divisional Judical magistrate directed that a complaint be filed under Sec.211 of the Indian penal Code and Rule 43 of the Defence of India Rules. The facts need not be stated because I propose to dispose of this application on a short poin. 2. The Learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate on 21.4.1976 i. e. on the day he directed a complaint to be filed passed the following order a certified copy of which has been filed before this Court : "perused the complaint and the order-sheet dated 15.4.1976 and 21.4.1976 of complaint case No.87/76. A prima facie case having been made out Cognizance under Sec.211,1. P. C. and 43 of the D. I. R. is taken against Kail ash Tiwari and the case is transferred to the court of Shri A. N. Khan Judical Magistrate, 1st Class, Bhabhua for favour of disposal. Issue W. A, non-bailable fixing 30.4.76,. By the above order after perusing the complaint and the order-sheet of the complaint case no.87-C/76 including his own order, dated 21.4.1976 he took cognizane of the offences under Sec.211 of the Indian Penal code and Rule 43 of the Defence of India Rules and issued non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner". This order of the Learned Magistrate is clearly hit by the principle of nemo Debet Ease Jude in propria cause which means that a person cannot be a Judge of a case where in he is interested. This order of the Learned Magistrate is clearly hit by the principle of nemo Debet Ease Jude in propria cause which means that a person cannot be a Judge of a case where in he is interested. I have held in Criminal Revision no.1370 of 1976 (Sarju Prasad Gupta V/s. The State of Bihar), disposed of on the 15th February, that such a case cannot be kept beyond the purview of the provision of Sec.479 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. I have also held that the word trial should be given wide meaning and taking of cognizance will come within the purview of trial for the present purpose. Undoubtedly, in this case the action of the Learned Magistrate in taking cognizance on a complaint filed by himself is hit by the provision of Sec.479 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and cannot be sustained. In my earlier decision I had relied on several decisions which are as follows : rameshwar Bhartia V/s. the State of Assam, AIR 1952 SC 405 at 407 ; Queen empress V/s. Pohpi and others, ILR13 Allahabad 171 ; R. R. Chari V/s. the State of uttar Pradesh, AIR 1951 SC 207 ), The State of Bihar V/s. Ram Naresh Pandey (AIR 1957 SG 389 and Md. Sharfuddin alias Shamshuddin V/s. The Stae fo Bihar ( 1974 BBCJ 507 ). I have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the cognizance taken is fit to be quashed and the consequent trial will be illegal and void. In this view of he matter the order taking cognizance against the petitioner by order dated 21.4.1976, is quashed, application allowed.