Judgment D.S.Dhaliwal, J. 1. The petitioners herein seek for quashing of order dated 93-1992 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate. Hazaribagh, whereby he took cognizance of the offence under sections 182, 211 read with sec. 109 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners in Case No. V-13/91. 2. The brief fact giving rise to the impugned order are like this: One Mosamati Manjhiain lodged first information report against one Bhaktidhar Mishra for an offence u/s. 376 of the Indian Penal Code. After registration of the case, the Investigation Officer got the statement of Mosamati Majhiain recorded by the court u/s. 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which she supported the allegations made in the first information report. However, after the investigation the case was found to be false and final report was submitted on 17-2-1989 indicating the case to be false. Subsequently, Inspector Barun Kumar of Police Station Vishnugarh filed criminal complaint dated 3-3-1991 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh against the petitioners for offence under sections 182, 211 read with sec. 109 of the Indian Penal Code for their having abetted Mosamati Majhiain to lodge a false case against Bhaktidhar Mishra and their having instigated the aforesaid prosecutrix to make a false statement u/s. 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the offence u/s. 211 of the Indian Penal Code is alleged to have been committed in relation to making of a statement u/s. 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure therefore the court below could not have taken cognizance of the offence without there being a complaint made by the court. As regards the other offence u/s. 182 of the Indian Penal Code the contention of the learned counsel is that since the offence is punishable with a term of imprisonment of loss than one year. Sec. 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides a limitation of one year for taking cognizance of such an offence and as the cognizance in this case has been taken after expiry of that period cognizance order cannot be sustained. 4. I find sufficient merit in these contentions. Sec. 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides a limitation of one year for taking cognizance of such an offence and as the cognizance in this case has been taken after expiry of that period cognizance order cannot be sustained. 4. I find sufficient merit in these contentions. Perusal of the complaint filed in the court by the Inspector goes to show that the prosecution of the petitioners for the offence u/s. 211 of the Indian Penal Code is also based on the allegedly false statement made u/s. 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by Mosamati Majhiain. Therefore according to the averments in the complaint itself the alleged offence was committed during the proceedings before a court. In this situation sub-clause (b) of sec. 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would come into play, which clearly bars cognizance of the offence by court in such a case except on a complaint in writing of that court or some other court to which that court is subordinate. Admittedly no complaint was made by the court before whom Mosamati Majhiain is said to have made her statement u/s. 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. As regards the other offences u/s. 182 of the Indian Penal Code perusal of the final report dated 172-1989 filed in court goes to show that it had already come to the notice of the police during investigation that Mosamati Majhiain had lodged false report which led to registration of the case. As per sec. 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure since the offence u/s. 182 of the Indian Penal Code is punishable with an imprisonment of sixmonths only the Court could have taken cognizance of the said offence only within the limitation period of one year. The cognizance in this case was however taken must after the expiry of the said period on 3-3-1991. The impugned order taking cognizance order therefore is bad in the eyes of law and cannot be sustained. 6. In the result the petition is allowed. The order taking cognizance dated 9-3-1992 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Hazaribagh in Case No. V-13/ 91 is hereby set aside.