Judgment P. K. Deb, J. 1. Heard Mr. Tapen sen, appearing for and on behalf of the petitioner and also heard Mr. K. S. Mazumdar for and on behalf of the state. 2. Prayer has been made in this petition under Sec.482 Cr. PC for quashing of entire criminal proceeding against the petitioner in connection with a complaint case No. C (iii)315/1992 under Sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code together with the order dated 12-10-1992 passed in the case taking cognizance by the Chief judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. 3. The case, in brief is that on 8-6-89 the petitioner lodged a FIR before the Officer-Incharge, Doranda Police station against one Hardayal Sahu regarding commission of an offence under Sections 25 and 26 of the Arms act. The petitioner happened to be Inspector of police at the relevant time. The case was investigated and it could be found that there were legal lacuna in the case and, as such, final report was submitted. It has not been stated that the case was false on the face of it but then there were recommendation by the higher authorities of the Police Department including the opposite party No.2 for lodging the complaint against the petitioner in appropriate Court for filing of false case as (Sic) under Sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal code. On such recommendation being made, one Sri Nirmal Kumar Singh, junior Sub-Inspector attached with the doranda Police Station has filed a complaint against the petitioner as contained in Annexure-5. It is stated in the complaint petition that the petitioner had lodged a false case against Hardayal sahu, although final form had been submitted and while recommending the case by the higher authorities, it is only stated that there was legal lacuna in lodging the prosecution by the petitioner. Some behind-the-screen facts have been stated in the petition as to why this complaint petition has been filed against the petitioner, but being a court of law I am not concerned with such behind -screen-stories. 4. The main point raised in this quashing petition is with regard to the jurisdiction of Officer concerned in lodging complaint under Sec.195 (1) Cr. Some behind-the-screen facts have been stated in the petition as to why this complaint petition has been filed against the petitioner, but being a court of law I am not concerned with such behind -screen-stories. 4. The main point raised in this quashing petition is with regard to the jurisdiction of Officer concerned in lodging complaint under Sec.195 (1) Cr. P. C. As it is stated earlier, investigation was done by some S. N. Chauhan, Inspector of Police, attached to Doranda Police Station at the relevant time and the complaint has been lodged by another Junior Sub-Inspector of Police, Sri Nirmal Kumar singh, when Sec.195 (1) creates a bar in taking cognizance of an offence under Sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code unless the complaint is filed by a competent officer or any officer to whom that concerned officer was subordinate. Here, the complaint has not been lodged by Mr. S. N. Chauhan, who had investigated the case but the same has been lodged by a junior Sub-Inspector Sri Nirmal Kumar singh. Thus, according to Mr. Sen, provision of Sec.195 (1) Cr. P. C. has been violated. He has referred to a judgment of Apex Court as reported in daulat Ram V/s. State of Punjab, AIR 1962 SC at page 1206, and also a judgment of this Court as reported in naresh Sahay and another V/s. The State of bihar 1990 (1) PUR 436: 1989 BUT (Rep) page 344. On legal lacuna, the complaint is barred on proper recognition and hence cognizance taken is bad in the eye of law. 5. In that view of the matter, entire criminal proceeding in Complaint case no. C (iii) 315/92 against the petitioner is hereby quashed. Petition Allowed.