Judgment :- The petitioners approach this Court with a prayer to quash the proceedings made in S.T.C.No.192 of 2008, pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Shencottah. 2. The petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.5040 of 2008, who is a villager and the petitioner in Crl.O.P. (MD).No.4297 of 2008, who is a Village Administrative Officer. The facts and the question of law, which arises in both the petitions are one and the same. Hence, these petitions can be disposed of by a common order. 3. The case of the prosecution is that they registered a case on 04.05.2007 in Crime No.205 of 2007, for an offence under Section 302 I.P.C. related to the occurrence, which took place on 10.12.1991. One Sangaralingam, while taking bath near a well, had slipped and subsequently died due to drowning into the said well. But whereas, the respondent police, on the basis of complaint given by one Kandasamy, registered a case after a lapse of 16 years, for an offence under Section 302 I.P.C., completed the investigation and filed a charge-sheet against the petitioners and others under Section 176 r/w. 203 I.P.C. As far as Section 176 I.P.C. is concerned, a person who is legally bound to give information is liable to be punished. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that to prosecute a person under Section 176 I.P.C., the Court can take cognizance only on the basis of a written complaint by a competent person. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioners also raised the ground that the present complaint is barred by limitation and the date of occurrence as alleged by the prosecution is on 10.12.1991. Even though the case registered under Section 302 I.P.C., the charge-sheet has been filed only under Sections 176 and 203 I.P.C., which runs as follows :- "176. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioners also raised the ground that the present complaint is barred by limitation and the date of occurrence as alleged by the prosecution is on 10.12.1991. Even though the case registered under Section 302 I.P.C., the charge-sheet has been filed only under Sections 176 and 203 I.P.C., which runs as follows :- "176. Omission to give notice or information to public servant by person legally bound to give it.- Whoever, being legally bound to give any notice or to furnish information on any subject to any public servant, as such, intentionally omits to give such notice or to furnish such information in the manner and at the time required by law, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both; or, if the notice or information required to be given respects the commission of an offence, or is required for the purpose of preventing the commission of an offence, or in order to the apprehension of an offender, with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both; or, if the notice or information required to be given is required by an order passed under sub-section (1) of Section 565 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898), with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both." There is a bar under Section 195 Cr.P.C., which runs as follows: "195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence.-(1) No Court shall take cognizance- (a)(i) of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188(both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or (ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence, or (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate; "203. Giving false information respecting an offence committed:- Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, gives any information respecting that offence which he knows or believes to be false, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both." 5. The ingredients to prove Section 203 I.P.C. are as follows:- (1) that an offence has been committed; (2) that the accused knew or had reason to believe that such offence had been committed; (3) that he gave the information with respect to that offence; (4) that the information so given was false; (5) that when he gave such information he knew or believed it to be false. 6. In the present case, the facts does not disclose an information to be necessarily communicated and also any commission of offence. In view of Section 39 Cr.P.C. which deals "the public to give information of certain offences", the present facts disclose the commission of offence is not covered under the provision of Section 39. 7. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance in the year 2007 and further, even though the complaint was received by the respondent herein in the year 1991, a case has been registered only in the year 2007, for which, the respondent has not offered any explanation. 8. Considering the above said facts, this Court is of the view that the present proceedings against the petitioners concerned would amount to abuse of process of law. Hence, the proceedings made in S.T.C.No.192 of 2008 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Shencottah against the petitioners herein is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the same is quashed and the petitions are allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also closed.