JUDGMENT 1. - By this Criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioners seek quashing of the proceedings initiated against them on a complaint filed by complaint Mangilal on 21st June, 1989 before the Civil Judge (J.D.) & Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bar (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') which was forwarded to S.H.O., Police Station, Raipur under sub-section (3) of Section 156 Cr.P.C. for investigation. On receipt of complaint, the concerned S.H.O. recorded First Information Report No.57/89 on 15th July, 1989 and proceeded with the investigation. After thorough investigation the police came to conclusion that no such occurrence took place and filed negative final report on 23.7.1990 under Section 173 Cr.P.C. During the course of investigation the police recorded statements of various witnesses and reached to the conclusion that the complainant has lodged false report. On 10th September, 1990, the complainant filed protect petition before the trial court. The trial court took cognizance of offences under Sections 323 and 504 I.P.C. on 15.10.1990 and issued process for summoning accused, who were named in the complaint. The complainant had impleaded as many as 31 persons as accused. 2. I have perused various order sheets of the trial court, complaint, F.I.R. and the statements of witnesses recorded by the trial court under Section 202 Cr.P.C. as also under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the police. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that for the offences alleged to have been committed on 21.6.1989, the trial court took cognizance of the offences under Sections 323 and 504 I.P.C. on 15.10.1990. However, the trial court did not proceed with the offence under Section 504 and framed charges for the offences under Sections 323 and 147 I.P.C. He contended that the complaint alleged that he was assaulted by as many as 31 persons but he sustained no injury on his person which shows that no such occurrence took place. Had the complainant been assaulted by as many as 31 persons, he would have sustained some injuries and in absence of injuries, the entire case of the complainant is falsified and on investigation police rightly came to the conclusion that the complainant had lodged a false report and no such occurrence as alleged by the complainant took place. 4. I have carefully gone through the material available on record. 4. I have carefully gone through the material available on record. On careful perusal of the record, essential ingredients to construe the offence under Section 147 I.P.C. is completely missing. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the trial court took cognizance of the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. against as many as 31 persons after the expiry of limitation to take cognizance ignoring mandatory provisions of Section 468 Cr.P.C. puts a complete bar for taking cognizance of the offences noticed above after lapse of period of limitation noticed above after lapse of period of limitation commenced from the date of occurrence i.e. 21.6.1989. The bar to take cognizance after expiry of period of limitation has been created by Section 468 Cr.P.C. The provision of Section 468 Cr.P.C. is mandatory in nature. So far as offence under Section 147 I.P.C. is concerned, the trial court has not taken cognizance and thus, without there being cognizance of the offence, the petitioners cannot be tried for the offences mentioned hereinabove. More so, on careful consideration of the material on record as noticed above, there is nothing to suggest that any injury was caused to the complainant. Not only this, the essential ingredient which construes the offence under Section 147 I.P.C. i.e. rioting is missing and, therefore, even prima facie no offences under Sections 323 and 147 are made out. No specific overtact has been assigned to any of the accused persons. The trial court without examining the material on record judiciously proceeded to hold trial of as many as 31 persons named by the complainant. If there had been any such occurrence, then the complainant would have sustained some injuries in the hands of 31 persons. But on careful perusal of the record, it reveals that the complainant had not received even scratch on his person. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment of this Court in Raghuraj Singh & Ors. v. Surendra Singh & Ors., 1990 Raj. Cr.C. 475. The case in hand has identical facts and that of the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In the above referred case, this Court held that it is unfortunate and regrettable that the learned Magistrate has not gone into the provisions of law before issuing the process. v. Surendra Singh & Ors., 1990 Raj. Cr.C. 475. The case in hand has identical facts and that of the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In the above referred case, this Court held that it is unfortunate and regrettable that the learned Magistrate has not gone into the provisions of law before issuing the process. He was either unmindful of the same or has deliberately overlooked them, for that reason alone taking cognizance for offence under Section 323 Indian Penal Code is bad in law. Regarding offence under Section 147 Cr.P.C., it is not even made out from the statement of the complainant himself that there was any overtact act assigned against any of the persons except a bald statement that so many people collected in the village and gave beating to him with not even a scratch on his person. In that case as many as 14 persons were arraigned as accused. This Court held that taking cognizance against the accused persons is barred by section 468 Cr.P.C. and, therefore, allowed the application filed by the accused petitioner therein under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quashed the proceedings. The facts of the instant case are almost identical expect one that in the instant case 31 persons were arraigned as accused whereas in the case referred above there were 14 persons. There are many other infirmities in the prosecution case which need not be gone into. Suffice it to say that the prosecution case does not inspire any confidence in view of the fact that the complainant has neither sustained any injury nor specific overtact has been assigned to the petitioners. 6. It is settled law that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are exercised sparingly and consciously but from the facts demonstrated if the courts come to the conclusion that non-interference would result in manifest injustice as also to prevent the abuse of process of the court and to secure ends of justice, the court should not hesitate in exercising such powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 7. I am of the considered opinion that the case in hand squarely falls within the purview of Section 482 Cr.P.C. 8. In the result, this criminal misc. petition is allowed and the order of the trial court taking cognizance and framing charges are set aside as also criminal proceedings against the petitioners are quashed. I am of the considered opinion that the case in hand squarely falls within the purview of Section 482 Cr.P.C. 8. In the result, this criminal misc. petition is allowed and the order of the trial court taking cognizance and framing charges are set aside as also criminal proceedings against the petitioners are quashed. Bails bonds and surety bonds are discharged.Petition Allowed. *******