Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in U.C. Case no. 414/93 (T.R. No. 1238/94). together with the order of cognizance taken on 4.11.1993, now pending before Shri Raj Kishore Choubey, Judicial Magistrate. Chatra. 3. The petitioner lodged an information regarding theft by lunking house trespass by night. After investigation police submitted final form under Section 173. Cr PC, stating that the complaint was false and there was a recommendation being made by the Investigating agencv that proceedings under Section 182/211 of the IPC, should be proceeded against the petitioner for filing false case. 4. It appears from the records that when the final form under Section 173, Cr PC was filed then a protest petition was filed by the petitioner and after due enquiry cognizance was taken on 17.8.1992, against the accused persons and ultimately order of conviction was recorded by judgment dated 13.7.1995. But the initial recommendation made by the Investigating agency was taken cognizance of by the learned Magistrate on 4.11.1993 and then proceeded against the petitioner. After the final form was not being accepted and on the basis of protest petition cognizance was taken then this proceeding i.e.. U.C. Case no. 414/93 ought not to have been proceeded with. Moreover, the said proceeding on the recommendation of the Investigating agency is bad on the face of it as being not in conformity under Section 195 (1) (b) of the Cr PC. Reference may be made to a judgment of this Court as reported in 1995 (2) East Cr C 108. (Md. Swami v. State of Bihar). 5. Moreover, it further appears that although the petitioner made a petition before the CJM that the final form had not been accepted and that conviction has been awarded against the accused persons on the basis of the FIR being filed by the petitioner and the protest petition thereafter, this proceeding ought to be dropped, but the said prayer has not been entertained by the learned CJM. Then, a revision petition was filed before the Sessions Judge being Cr. Revision No. 136 of 1994 and the same was disposed of by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Chatra on the simple point that the revision was not maintainable as the order passed by the CJM was an interlocutory order. Then, a revision petition was filed before the Sessions Judge being Cr. Revision No. 136 of 1994 and the same was disposed of by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Chatra on the simple point that the revision was not maintainable as the order passed by the CJM was an interlocutory order. Now, this petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in the above mentioned U.C. case under Section 482, Cr PC. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, after the conviction has been arrived at there remains no scope to infer that the petitioner complainant had made false information before the police. Moreover, even if there was no conviction also then on the recommendation of the Investigating agency, a court cannot take cognizance under Section 182/211, IPC as complete bar is there under Section 195 (1) (b) of the Cr PC. Both, legally and factually the proceedings in the above mentioned U.C. case is nothing but the abuse of the process of the court. 7. Hence, the entire criminal proceedings as mentioned hereinabove is hereby quashed.