Judgment S. H. S. Abidi, J. 1. Ram Surat Sharma has come to this Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against an order of learned Chief judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, dated 12-7-1982 by which he has taken cognizance of the offence under Sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as i. P. C. ) against the petitioner. 2. It has been said in the petition that the petitioner filed a complaint case no. C.146 of 1981 on 23-2-1982 against the opposite party Nos.2 to 6 under sections 147, 342, 436, 379 and 426 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of the chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, who sent the case to the officer-in-charge of Sadar Police Station (Mushari outpost) for instituting a case under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code ). The case was instituted as Sadar P. S. Case No.153 of 1981, dated 29-3-1981 and it was entrusted for investigation to the Sub-Inspector of Police, namely, Sri S. C. Choudhary. The said investigating officer, who went to the spot, examined witnesses and found that the hut of the petitioner was set on fire and the opposite party Nos 2 and 3 were holding up the petitioner and other opposite parties were also present there and another witness Ram Ratan Pandey said to the police that he intervened the opposite parties when they were assaulting the complainant. Further the investigating officer had found burnt leaves of Kathal and Banana trees on the spot and he also found Nad and bullock kept by accused-opposite parties. Further he found old burnt marai of the petitioner. The new morai was constructed by the opposite parties and the layer of ground of Marai was raised one feet high. 3. In spite of all these findings, final form was submitted by the Sub-Inspector of Police concerned and he also prayed for instituting a case for the offence punishable under Sections 182 and 211,i. P. C. against the petitioner. After the final form was submitted, the petitioner filed a protest petition on 15-5-1981. On 5-8-1981 the final form was received with a report for prosecution of the petitioner under Sections 182 and 211 I. P. C. as stated above. The petitioner though filed Haziri, but the case could not be taken up. After the final form was submitted, the petitioner filed a protest petition on 15-5-1981. On 5-8-1981 the final form was received with a report for prosecution of the petitioner under Sections 182 and 211 I. P. C. as stated above. The petitioner though filed Haziri, but the case could not be taken up. It appears that on 13-11-1981 the informant filed Haziri but in spite of repeated calls he did not appear with the result that protest petition was rejected and the final form was accepted. The same day, that is 13-11-1981 the informant filed a petition for hearing the informant on the protest petition. Several dates were fixed in the case but on one or two dates the complainant was absent and so ultimately on 14-4-1982 the petition to recall the order dated 13-11-1981 was dismissed. On 15-4-1982 the protest petition was dismissed. 4. It appears that on 31-5-1982 Sri Shailendra Kumar Sinha, Advocate, filed a petition to prosecute the petitioner complainant under Sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate ordered for summoning of the accused and for calling for the orignial file on 11-6-1982. The next date fixed in the case was 10-7-1982. On 10-7-1982 the informant was absent and the service report mentioned due service upon him and so 12-7-1982 was fixed for appearance of the petitioner. On 12-7-1982 the petitioner did not appear and the cognizance of the offence under Sections 182 and 211 of the I. P. C. was taken and thus the petitioner has come to this Court against that order. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged the following contentions : (i) That for offences under Sections 172 to 188 of Indian Penal Code a prosecution report has to be filed by the police. In this case the charge-sheet has been submitted on 2-4-1981 and, thereafter, on 8-5-1981 the prosecution report was filed in which the police has reported for the prosecution of the petitioner under Sections 182 and 211,i. P. C. The cognizance has been taken on 12-7-1982. In this case the charge-sheet has been submitted on 2-4-1981 and, thereafter, on 8-5-1981 the prosecution report was filed in which the police has reported for the prosecution of the petitioner under Sections 182 and 211,i. P. C. The cognizance has been taken on 12-7-1982. So the cognizance has been taken after a year and as provided under section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure no cognizance can be taken of such offences after the period of limitation of one year and since Sec.182 I. P. C. prescribes the sentence of six months only so the cognizance could not be taken after a period of one year. (ii) That as regards offence under Sec.211 I. P. C. for which a complaint is to be made by the Court as provided under Section 195 (1) (b) of the Code, no compliance of the provisions as contained in Sections 340 (a) (b) and (c) of the Code has been made. And when there is no report of the Court, no finding, and no complaint, and no sentence of the learned Magistrate, First Class, then the cognizance of the offence under Sec.211 is bad. (iii) The next contention cf the petitioner is that it is a petty offence and so the prosecution should have not been started. In this regard reliance "in a decision Chajoo Ram V/s. Radhey Shyam and another, 1971 SC 1367 has been placed. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite party has contended that though in this case there is no compliance of Sections 340 (a) (b) and (c) of the Code in respect of the offence under Sec.211 I. P. C. but in regard to offence under Section 182 I. P. C. there is compliance of the provisions of Sec.195 (l) (a) of the code as there is a prosecution report and so the prosecution is not bad. He relied, in this connection, on the decisions in the cases of Thakur Prasad and another V/s. Emperor, 1936 Patna 74 ; Gopal Chandra Mandal V/s. The State, (1957)Calcutta 382 and Durgacharan Naik and others V/s. State of Orissa, 1966 SC 1775. To appreciate the case of the learned counsel for the parties it is to be seen that the complaint is dated 23-2-1981, charge-sheet has been submitted on 2-4-1981, and, thereafter, prosecution report has been submitted on 8-5-1981 and lastly, cognizance has been taken on 12-7-1982. To appreciate the case of the learned counsel for the parties it is to be seen that the complaint is dated 23-2-1981, charge-sheet has been submitted on 2-4-1981, and, thereafter, prosecution report has been submitted on 8-5-1981 and lastly, cognizance has been taken on 12-7-1982. Sec.195 of the Code makes a provision for offence under Sec.172 to 188 I. P. C. that cognizance may be taken on the basis of complaint in writing of the public servant con-cerned. If the public servant has sent the final form dated 2-4-1981 and also prosecution report dated 8-5-1981, so there is sufficient compliance of the provision under Sec.195 (l) (a) in respect of offence under Sec.182 but the fact remains that after the complaint dated 2.3-2-1981, final report dated 2-4-1981 and prosecution report dated 8-5-1981 was filed and the cognizance of the offence has been taken by the Court on 12-7-1982 then definitely it is beyond the period of one year which is a period prescribed under Sec.468 of the Code for taking cognizance of the offence under Sec.182. So the order taking cognizance by the learned Magistrate, First Class on 12-7- 1982 is barred by limitation and so cannot stand. 7. As regards the prosecution for the offence under Sec.211 I. P. C. , section 195 (l) (b) provides that cognizance of the offence publishable under section 211 I. P. C. can be taken on the basis of complaint of the Court in writing and, thereafter, provisions under Sec.340 of the Code is also required to be followed. The Court is required to record a finding to that effect and a compliant in writing, has to be sent to a Magistrate of the First Class having jurisdiction to see, which has not been done in this case. Rather the said magistrate, to whom prosecution report has been submitted, without complying with the said provisions under Sections 340 (b) and (c), has himself taken cognizance of the offence which is bad in law. 8. In the result, the order dated 12-7-1982 is quashed, so far as offence punishable under Sec.182 I. P. C. is concerned on the ground of it being hit by Sec.468 Cr. P. C. and so far as offence under Sec.211 I. P. C. is concerned on the ground of non-compliance of Sections 340 (a) (b) and (c) Cr. 8. In the result, the order dated 12-7-1982 is quashed, so far as offence punishable under Sec.182 I. P. C. is concerned on the ground of it being hit by Sec.468 Cr. P. C. and so far as offence under Sec.211 I. P. C. is concerned on the ground of non-compliance of Sections 340 (a) (b) and (c) Cr. P. C. This application is allowed and the order dated 12-7-1982 is quashed, accordingly. Application allowed.