ORDER Subhash Samvatsar, J. With the consent of parties the matter is finally heard. This petition is filed by the petitioner u/s 482, Criminal Procedure Code challenging the order dated 3-7-2004 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Gwalior in Special Cri. Case No. 25/2002 whereby the Special Court has rejected the application filed by the present petitioner for quashing the criminal proceedings pending against him. The brief facts of the case are that the present petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer in Public Health Engineering Department on 29-1-1963 and after getting due promotions he retired from the post of Superintending Engineer on 30th September, 1994. A No Objection Certificate was issued to him on 5-9-2000 stating that no departmental proceedings is pending against him nor any incident has taken place during his service tenure. A criminal proceedings was filed against the petitioner which was registered at Crime No. 67/96 for committing offences under sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and u/s 120B Indian Penal Code alleging that there were a number of irregularities in purchase of submersible pumps during the period from 16-8-1994 to 30-9-1994 The police filed challan against the petitioner for committing the aforesaid (sic) on 30-12-2002 and the Court below took cognizance of the offence on the same day. The contention of the present petitioner is that the said proceedings against him are not tenable in view of the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, (for short, "the Rules"). Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 9 of the Rules provides that no judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall be instituted in respect of a cause of action which arose or in respect of an event which took place, more than four years before such institution. Shri Sanjay Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the present case the petitioner retired from service on 30-9-1994 and the proceedings are initiated against him on 30-12-2002 i.e. not within four years from the date of event. Hence, the criminal proceedings against the petitioner cannot continue. Shri Sanjay Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the present case the petitioner retired from service on 30-9-1994 and the proceedings are initiated against him on 30-12-2002 i.e. not within four years from the date of event. Hence, the criminal proceedings against the petitioner cannot continue. Shri V.G. Khot, learned Government Advocate, in reply to this argument has relied upon sub-rule (6)(b) of Rule 9 of the Rules, which provides that judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted - (i) in case of criminal proceedings, on the date on which the complaint or report of a police officer, of which the Magistrate takes cognizance, is made. According to him, it is not necessary that the Court shall take, cognizance on the same day on which challan is filed. The Court below in the impugned order has held that after perusing the sub-rule (6)(b) of Rule 9 of the Rules the first information report in the present case was lodged on 8-8-1996 which is within four years from the date of event and, therefore, it cannot be said that the proceedings were not initiated within a period of four years from the date of event. For proper disposal of the case it is necessary to refer Rule 9(3) and Rule 9(6)(b) of the Rules which reads as under:- 9. Right of Governor to withhold or withdraw pension.- .... ... (3) No judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his reemployment, shall be instituted in respect of a cause of action which arose or in respect of an event which took place, more than four years before such institution. ** ** Right of Governor to withhold or withdraw pension.- .... (6) For the purpose of this rule - (b) judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted - (i) in the case of criminal proceedings, on the date on which the complaint or report of a police officer, of which the Magistrate takes cognizance, is made, and (ii) In the case of civil proceedings, on the date the plaint is presented in the Court. After perusing the impugned judgment and sub-rule (6)(b) of Rule 9 of the Rules, in my opinion the Court below was not right in holding that since the first information report was lodged within four years of the date of event, therefore, the proceedings could continue. A bare reading of sub-rule (6)(b) of Rule 9 makes it clear that a judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the complaint or the report of a police officer, of which the Magistrate takes cognizance means the challan or the private complaint filed against the concerned employee. Mere lodging of the first information report is not the institution of the judicial proceedings. Lodging of first information report cannot be termed as "judicial proceedings". The words "Judicial proceedings" are not defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure, but, it means a proceedings in the course of which evidence is or may be legally taken on oath. Thus, the term "judicial proceedings' means the proceedings which are initiated in the Court of justice and not the lodging of the first information report to police who is not competent to record statement or evidence on oath. In the present case, the judicial proceedings were instituted on the date on which the challan papers were filed by the police in the Court i.e. on 30-12-2002 and not on the date of lodging of the first information report. Thus, the view taken by the Court below on its face is erroneous and in such circumstances the criminal proceedings against the present petitioner cannot continue and are liable to be quashed. In the result, the petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and criminal proceedings against the petitioner are quashed as barred under Rule 9(3) of the Rules. Final Result : Allowed