JUDGMENT 1. - The stay application in Criminal Misc. Petition No. 195/87 came up for orders to day. Since the arguments on the stay application as well as the main petition were the same with the common consent of both the learned Counsel for the parties it was decided to hear arguments in details in the main petition as well and thus by this order the main petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. is being disposed of. 2. The petitioner, Hamid Ali, filed a First Information Report at police station Todabheem on April 24, 1978 for offences under Sections 341, 323 and 147 I.P.C. The allegations levelled in this report were that the petitioner Hamid Ali on April 23, 1978 when was returning after grazing his she-goats he was way laid by various persons named in the report and was beaten by fists and kicks. The police after investigation submitted a final report and observed therein that the report was false and it was filed for illegally harassing the complainant. The SHO concerned forwarded his final report to Asstt. Public Prosecutor through Circle Officer, Hindaun and it was recommended that a complaint under Section 182 I.P.C. should be filed against the complainant petitioner. On 12-9 1978 the Asstt. Public-Prosecutor filed a complaint in the court of Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Hindaun which was registered on 6-10-78. The accused-petitioner appeared before the court on 20-2-1979 along with his counsel and moved an application to the effect that proceedings should be quashed. In this application it was mentioned that the accused petitioner had also filed a complaint about the same incident on 31-7-1978 on which cognizance had been taken by the learned Magistrate on 12-10-78 and the said complaint is pending trial where in the next day fixed was 16-3-1979 for the evidence of the petitioner. He had filed the complaint because the police was not properly investigating into the case. Arguments were heard on this application and the learned Magistrate passed a detailed order on 17-5-79. In this order the Id. He had filed the complaint because the police was not properly investigating into the case. Arguments were heard on this application and the learned Magistrate passed a detailed order on 17-5-79. In this order the Id. Magistrate observed that it is proved that a complaint is pending in the matter in which the final report has been filed and cognizance on the same has been taken for offence under Sections 147, 323, 341 and 427 I.P.C. and, therefore, the complaint under Section 182 I.P.C. cannot be proceeded in view of the decision of this court reported in i961 RLW 534, hence the proceeding under Section 182 I.P.C. was ordered to be dropped. 3. The aforesaid order, dated 17-5-1979 was challenged in revision by the State of Rajasthan before Addl. Sessions Judge, Gangapur City which was decided by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge on 18-9-1980. The learned Judge finding no force in the petition and dismissed the same mentioning in the order that it is also not borne out from the record that final report had any time been accepted be the learned Magistrate before cognizance for offence under Section 182 I.P.C. was taken. 4. The complaint filed by Hathimali was dismissed by the learned Magistrate on 27-8-1981 where in the learned Magistrate observed that it appears from the record that a complaint under Section 182 I.P.C. was instituted against the accused-petitioner and the proceedings there in were dropped as this complaint was pending It was now open to the prosecution to proceed into the said complaint under Section 182 I.P.C. in accordance with law. After more than three years of passing of this order the learned Asstt. Public Prosecutor on 2-7-1984 moved an application before the learned Magistrate that the complaint dropped vide order, dated 17-5-1979 be taken on number and accused be proceeded with. He moved another application on 4-8-1984 to the same effect. These applications were dealt with separately and were disposed of vide impugned order, dated 23-8-1986. In this order the learned Magistrate took cognizance of offence against the accused. On this date he registered the case and issued process. That order has been challenged by the petitioner in this petition. 5. He moved another application on 4-8-1984 to the same effect. These applications were dealt with separately and were disposed of vide impugned order, dated 23-8-1986. In this order the learned Magistrate took cognizance of offence against the accused. On this date he registered the case and issued process. That order has been challenged by the petitioner in this petition. 5. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner the offence alleged against the accused is dated 24-4-1978 when the accused petitioner is alleged to have lodged a false report at police station, Todabheem Offence under Section 182 I.P.C. is punishable with imprisonment maximum for a period of 6 months and, therefore, the limitation for taking cognizance against the accused expired on 23-4-1979 it being one year under Section 468 Cr. P.C. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that cognizance had been taken against the accused as early as 6-10-1978 which was within period of limitation and vide order, dated 17-5-1979 the file was only consigned to record suspending the proceedings during the pendency of the complaint and, therefore, the order of revival passed on 23-8-1986 should not be construed as an order taking cognizance and the present petition should be dismissed. Learned Counsel relied on two decisions of this court reported in 1979 Cr. LR 467 and 1981 Cr. LR 212. 6. At the out-set I may mention that both the decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondent have absolutely no bearing on the facts of the present case which has a chequred history and where in a categorical order, dated 17-5-1979 dropping the proceedings was passed by the learned Magistrate. Besides this, this order, dated 17-5-1979 was confirmed in revision by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gangapur-city where in the learned Addl. Sessions Judge gave a categorical finding that even the final report had not been accepted before taking cognizance and by necessary implications, therefore it could not be said that the court could even apply its mind for taking cognizance on 17-5-1979. It is also relevant to mention that the State Government had not chosen to challenge the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gangapur-city before this court and as such I have no hesitation in holding that the order, dated 17-5-1979 cannot be construed as an order suspending the proceedings. In fact and in substance the order of learned Addl. It is also relevant to mention that the State Government had not chosen to challenge the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gangapur-city before this court and as such I have no hesitation in holding that the order, dated 17-5-1979 cannot be construed as an order suspending the proceedings. In fact and in substance the order of learned Addl. Sessions Judge confirming the order, dated 17-5-1979 is an order for dropping the proceeding on which cognizance was wrongly taken, since the final report had not been accepted. Thus by analogical deductions for the first time cognizance had been taken on 23-8-1986 obviously for an offence which is alleged to have been committed on 24-4-1978. That being so the cognizance taken is patently beyond period of limitation. 7. There is yet another important aspect of the matter and the calendar of dates in that respect would show that when the proceedings were ordered to be dropped on 17-5-1979 the learned Magistrate could not have passed an order on 28-7-1981 directing the A P.P. to get the proceedings revived. In view of the provisions of Section 195 Cr. P.C. it was for that court to have filed the complaint. It had no jurisdiction express or implied to either have directed the APP for file a complaint or to get the proceeding revived. Reference in this connection may be made to a decision of this court reported in 1961 RLW 534 where in Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chhangani, J. held, "when a person lodges a report before the police and also files a complaint and the Magistrate finds the complaint to be false, it is he who should file the complaint and police cannot prosecute the informant under Section 182 Cr. P.C." His Lordship had discussed the law concerning Section 195 Cr. P.C. in details. This case is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. Thus, I am firmly of the opinion that looking from any angle the impugned order taking cognizance cannot be sustained. 8. It is then contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent that provisions under Section 473, Cr. P.C. should be invoked and the court should condone the delay in taking cognizance. I am afraid the prayer cannot be accepted. From 1978 to 1987 for 9 years the accused petitioner had been dragged in this litigation. 8. It is then contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent that provisions under Section 473, Cr. P.C. should be invoked and the court should condone the delay in taking cognizance. I am afraid the prayer cannot be accepted. From 1978 to 1987 for 9 years the accused petitioner had been dragged in this litigation. The accused had attended court as early as 20-2-1979 when the bailable warrants were served upon him and it cannot be lost sight that in proceedings where even the cognizance was taken without acceptance of the final report. He had moved an application within his own rights which was accepted on 17-5-1979 and against which State went in revision and lost, a right accrued in him and he cannot be divested of the same by invoking provisions under Section 473 Cr. P.C. This prayer, therefore, is rejected. 9. The result of the aforesaid discussions is that order, dated 23-8-1986 passed by the learned Magistrate is absolutely illegal and is hereby quashed and consequently the proceedings stand quashed.Petitioner allowed. *******