Judgment 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 31-7-1992 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Lakhisarai taking cognizance against him for the offence under Secs. 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) in Case No. 98 (C) 2/ 85. He has filed this application under Sec. 482 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure. 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) for quashing of the aforesaid order. 3. Only such of the facts as are necessary for disposal of the application need be stated. According to the first information report lodged by the petitioner against opposite party No.2, the petitioner happens to be the founder Secretary of a High School. Some incident took place at about 4-5 p.m. on 30-8-1995 involving grazing of the field of the school. On the same night, at about 7.30 p.m. opposite party No.2 along with six another persons came to the school opened the door and took away certain articles mentioned in the fardbeyan. The police, on the basis of the First Information Report instituted Anari P.S. Case No. 78/85 under Secs. 457 and 380 IPC. However, after investigation the police submitted final form stating that the case was false and also recommended the prosecution of the petitioner under Secs. 182 and 211, of the IPC. The Investigating Officer of the case instituted non-FIR No.2 of 1985 under Secs. 182 and 211, IPC against the petitioner, a photo copy of which is Annexure-I. It was forwarded to the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate on 20-9-1985 and by the impugned order, cognizance was taken against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner challenged the legality of the impugned order taking cognizance on two grounds including the bar under Sec. 468 of the Code. So far the first ground is concerned, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 rightly pointed out that there is no period of limitation for taking cognizance for the offence under Sec. 380, IPC which is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may be extended to 7 years. Therefore the present case is covered by the latter part of Sec. 211 IPC and there is no period of limitation prescribed under Sec. 468 of the Code for taking cognizance for such an offence. Therefore the present case is covered by the latter part of Sec. 211 IPC and there is no period of limitation prescribed under Sec. 468 of the Code for taking cognizance for such an offence. Thus, this ground of attack against the impugned order of taking cognizance fails. 5. So far as the second ground of attack is concerned, it has been specifically stated in the application that on the basis of the protest complaint filed by the petitioner/informant in the criminal case, the court had been pleased to take cognizance against opposite party no. 2. Learned Counsel for opposite party no. 2 stated and may be for want of necessary instructions, that he has no information about any such order having been passed. It was pointed out on behalf of opposite party no. 2 that the petitioner has not given the date on which the said order taking cognizance was passed. I see no reason to disbelieve the statement made on affidavit in the application and also reiterated at the bar on behalf of the petitioner. If, on the basis of the materials contained in the protest complaint and other papers including the final form, the learned Judicial Magistrate has been pleased to take cognizance against opposite party no. 2, it is a patent abuse of the process of the court amounting to miscarriage of justice to prosecute the informant for an offence under Secs. 380 and 211, IPC. In my opinion, guashing of the impugned order taking cognizance as also of criminal prosecution based thereon, deserve to be quashed to secure the ends of justice. I order accordingly and allow this application.