ORDER At the outset learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to make correction in typographical mistake in para 1 of the petition which he is permitted to do. 2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code' in short) praying therein for quashing order dated 27.2.1999 recorded by the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga in G.O. Case No. 25 of 1998/T.R. No. 1242 of 1999 whereby and whereunder the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of offence punishable under Sections 193 and 196 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and one other (Radhey Shayam Chaudhary, son of the petitioner), as well for quashing order dated 24.9.2002 recorded by the learned 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Darbhanga in Criminal Revision No. 206 of 1999, preferred against the aforesaid impugned order, which revision was also dismissed. 3. The facts, in brief, are that Radhey Shayam Choudhary was an accused in Kamtaul P.S. Case No.9 of 1994 and he obtained provisional bail from the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga on 25.3.1994 on the ground that he was a minor and an examinee of the Matriculation examination, in support of which he filed certain documents. As alleged actually he was Radhey Shyam Choudhary but he had filed bail application in the name of Shyam Sundar @ Radheshyam Chaudhary. The informant challenged that his name was only Radheyshyam Chaudhary and was not a minor but he had changed his name to be Shyam Sunder for obtaining a fresh matriculation certificate as he had become overage for government job and he was taking advantage of such changing of the name for getting bail in the aforesaid case. That matter was enquired into by the same Court and finding that the accused was not a minor and he had filled up matriculation examination form in other name only to show a lower age and that actually he had passed matriculation examination in the year 1985 in which his date of birth was 6.6.1969 and also had taken admission in the graduation course. His provisional bail was cancelled 4. His provisional bail was cancelled 4. Thereafter Radheyshyam Chaudhary moved the Sessions Judge, Darbhanga for bail which Court directed the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga to hold summary enquiry into the matter giving opportunity for adducing evidence to both sides in course of which the informant on one side, and the aforesaid accused as well his father were also examined as witnesses and some documents were produced. Considering the evidence as well the documentary proof the learned lower Court was of the opinion that Radheyshyam Chaudhary was major but had changed his name as Shyam Sunder Chaudhary for the aforesaid purposes. Thereafter, the learned Sessions Judge upheld the order of cancellation of bail by the learned lower Court and rejected his prayer for bail whereafter this matter came up for bail to this Court in Cri. Misc. No. 5175 of 1996 in which the learned Magistrate was directed to dispose of the petition for filing complaint in accordance with law, whereafter the complaint was filed. 5. It may be mentioned that both the parties have been heard and the State was given chance to file counter affidavit which was not filed. 6. The ground for quashing is that the complaint of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga on which cognizance of offence was taken does not depict ingredients of any offence that might have been committed by the present petitioner who was father of Radhey Shyam Chaudhary. 7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that this matter was tested by both the accused in criminal revision which was decided by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Darbhanga which was dismissed, hence on the same point a petition in the garb of powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code could not be entertained. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor pointed out that the learned revisional Court had noticed the argument that Ram Krishna Choudhary in course of enquiry had given a false statement in favour of his son Radhey Shyam Chaudhary. 8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor pointed out that the learned revisional Court had noticed the argument that Ram Krishna Choudhary in course of enquiry had given a false statement in favour of his son Radhey Shyam Chaudhary. 8. From perusal of the complaint on which cognizance of offence was taken it will appear that at the top of the complaint in the category of accused both Radhey Shyam Chaudhary and the petitioner have been named but the entire body of the complaint goes to show as to how Radhey Shyam Choudhary had fraudulently changed his name to Shyam Sunder for appearing in the matriculation examination, second time, in order to show his lower age and how the documentary evidence revealed that. The Court after having discussed the materials on record in which it was only mentioned that "the accused as well as his father were also examined", in the last portion of the complaint it was stated as follows:- "And in pursuance of the order of Hon'ble High Court I am filing this complaint against the accused Radhey Shyam Chaudhary for fabricating and showing false evidence knowingly and believing to be false and corruptly using the same as true and genuine evidence knowing full and well the same to be false with an intention to procure a favourable order from the Court in his favour and as such he be prosecuted for the same". 9. As has been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several cases including the cases reported in (1976)3 Supreme Court Cases 736; Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and 1992 Supp. (1) Supreme Court Cases 335; State of Haryana vs. Bhajanlal, there are certain grounds on which a complaint, or proceedings in a complaint could be quashed, one of such ground being that if the complaint does not give out ingredients of any offence to have been committed by the accused. 10. From perusal of the complaint of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, I don't find that it contains such allegations as would make out commission of any offence such as giving a false evidence in the Court or using as true document knowing the same to be false in the Court or for that matter any other offence, against the petitioner. Just mentioning that father was also examined in the enquiry would not constitute any offence against him. 11. Just mentioning that father was also examined in the enquiry would not constitute any offence against him. 11. No doubt learned revisional Court has noted the argument of the learned Public Prosecutor that this petitioner during enquiry had given "false statement" in favour of his son. But the facts constituting any offence having been committed by a particular accused, should come in the complaint or F.I.R. itself. Even assuming that in the enquiry if certain statement given by this petitioner was not true and that he had given such statement knowing the same to be not true, then in the interest of justice for that a separate enquiry should have been held under Section 340 of the Code against him giving him opportunity to defend his evidence, and that should not have been dealt with in relation to an enquiry which was essentially against the accused Radhey Shyam Choudhary for using a document knowing the same to be false for getting bail. 12. In that view of the matter, I don't find that the cognizance of offence against the petitioner is sustainable. 13. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has argued that since the order was tested in revision this Court while exercising inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code should not interfere with the order of the revisional Court or of both the lower Courts. 14. It is true that the Code prohibits two revisions on the same point at two forums, and the aggrieved party having selected a forum out of the two is barred from moving the other forum for the same relief. In that view of the matter, ordinarily when the matter has been tested in revision, this Court would not exercise its inherent powers. It is equally true that the inherent powers of this Court can be exercised in exceptional circumstances if the court finds that the lower courts have committed an error on the face of the record or have acted obviously not in accordance with law. 15. In view of what has been discussed above, it is obvious that• cognizance of offence against the petitioner could not have been taken on the basis of the complaint that was filed against him. 16. 15. In view of what has been discussed above, it is obvious that• cognizance of offence against the petitioner could not have been taken on the basis of the complaint that was filed against him. 16. In the aforesaid circumstances this petition is allowed and order dated 27.2.1999 recorded by the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga and order dated dated 24.9.2002 recorded by learned 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Darbhanga, in so far as it relates to the petitioner, Ram Krishna Choudhary, are hereby quashed.