JUDGMENT 1. - On the request of learned counsel for the parties, all the three petitions are disposed of by this common order. 2. In all the three petitions, Raj Kumar and Narendra Kumar-petitioner and respondent No. 2 respectively, are said to be brothers who are practising lawyers. The dispute between both the brothers is with respect to House No. 107, 'L' Block, Sri Gangangar. I will take-up each petition in the order as requested by learned counsel for the petitioner and the petitioner present in person.S.B. Criminal Misc. Application No. 23012001: 3. The Misc. Application filed for reconstitution of file of Revision Petition is ordered to be allowed. The reconstituted file, already submitted by Mr. Kumbhat, is ordered to be registered at its regular number. 4. The instant petition is directed against the order of the learned CJM, Sri Ganganagar dated 9.6.1995, whereby he has discharged the second respondent-Narendra Kumar of offence u/ss. 451, 323 & 327 IPC. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 26.7.1992, petitioner herein lodged a complaint at Police Station Kotwali, Sri Ganganagar at 1.45 p.m. to the effect that he had lodged a complaint being Case No. 320/1992 against Narendra Kumar, Surendra Kumar for the offence u/ss. 454, 427, 147, 148, 149 & 504 IPC. In connection with investigation in the said FIR, the Sub-Inspector of Police had visited his house. While he had gone to see off the Sub-Inspector of Police, accused-Narendra Kumar gave beating to his sons Manish and Deepak by fists & slaps. He got them medically examined. After investigation, police filed charge-sheet against Narendra Kumar for the offence u/ss. 323, 327, & 451 IPC. Learned Magistrate found that since the house in question belonged to both the brothers, there is no question of criminal trespass. Thus, even prima facie, no offence u/s. 451 IPC is made out. Similarly, there is nothing to show that voluntary hurt was caused to extort the property or to constrain any illegal act. Learned Magistrate also found that offence u/s. 323 IPC is bailable and non-cognizable offence. He also found mala fide on the part of the Sub-Inspector for arresting Narendra Kumar for the offence u/s. 323 IPC. 5. I do not find any infirmity in the order of discharge and, hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed.S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 157/1996 6. He also found mala fide on the part of the Sub-Inspector for arresting Narendra Kumar for the offence u/s. 323 IPC. 5. I do not find any infirmity in the order of discharge and, hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed.S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 157/1996 6. By way of instant petition u/s. 482 Cr.P.C., petitioner has challenged the order of the learned CJM Sri Ganganagar dated 4.8.1995, whereby he has taken cognizance against the petitioner for the offence u/ss. 500 & 120-B IPC. It is stated that respondent-Narendra Kumar filed a complaint against petitioner-Raj Kumar for filing a false and fabricated FIR being 320/1992. It is averred that a news was published in this regard in the local newspaper. According to the complainant, the act of the petitioner herein has adversely affected his reputation as a senior advocate practising in the Revenue Board and this Court. Learned Magistrate by the impugned order has taken cognizance against the petitioner for the offence u/ss. 500 & 120-B IPC. It is submitted by the learned counsel that in view of provisions of Section 196(2) Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate has committed error in taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offence u/ss. 500 & 120-B IPC. Sub-section (2) of Section 196 Cr.P.C. prohibits a Court from taking cognizance of offence of any criminal conspiracy u/s. 120-B IPC other than criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable for a term beyond two years. The maximum sentence for the offence u/s. 500 IPC is one year's imprisonment. Thus, the complaint against the petitioner for the offence u/s. 500 r/w 120-B IPC is barred by Section 196(2) Cr.P.C.S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 156/1996 7. The instant petition u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by petitioner-Raj Kumar against the order dated 4.8.1995 passed by the learned ACJM, First Class, Sri Ganganagar, whereby he has taken cognizance against him for the offence u/ss. 342 & 342/120 IPC. In the case referred to earlier being FIR Case No. 320/1992, accused-respondent-Narendra Kumar was arrested. Thus, he filed a complaint against petitioner-Raj Kumar and the Sub-Inspector of Police viz , Bhanwar Singh for his unlawful detention in the police station. I have perused the impugned order. Accused-Narendra Kumar was called at the police station in connection with investigation in FIR lodged by petitioner-Raj Kumar. In view of this, it cannot be said that he was unlawfully detained. I have perused the impugned order. Accused-Narendra Kumar was called at the police station in connection with investigation in FIR lodged by petitioner-Raj Kumar. In view of this, it cannot be said that he was unlawfully detained. Thus, the learned Magistrate has committed illegality in taking cognizance against petitioner and Bhanwar Singh, S.I. for the said offences. Therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed. 8. Consequently, all the three petitions are disposed of as follows:- (i) S.B. Criminal Revision (wherein Misc. Application No. 230/2001 has been allowed directing reconstitution, of file) is dismissed (ii) S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 157/1996 is allowed and the order of the learned ACJM dated 4.8.1995 taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offence u/s. 500 r/w 120-B IPC is quashed and set aside, and (iii) S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 156/1996 is allowed. The order of the learned ACJM, Sri Ganganagar dated 4.8.1995 taking cognizance against petitioner and Bhanwar Singh for the offence u/ss. 342 & 342/120 IPC is quashed and set aside. Revision Petition (wherein Misc. Application No. 230/2001 has been allowed) dismissed, Petition No. 157/1996 allowed, Petition No. 156/1996 allowed. *******