JUDGEMENT Akhilesh Chandra, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Opposite Party No. 3. 2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking quashing of the order dated 08.01.2004 passed by the Incharge, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan, in Goreakothi P.S. Case No. 10 of 2002, Tr. No. 01 of 2004 taking cognizance for the offences under Section 182, 211 of the Indian Penal Code against the informant petitioner. 3. The undisputed relevant facts of the case is that the informant on the written application of the informant Goreakothi P.S. Case No. 10/2002 under Section 341, 323, 504 was instituted on 19.02.2002, wherein, accused persons named are opposite party Nos. 2 to 5. 4. After investigation police submitted final form finding the case untrue on 24.07.2002, but, much before filing of such final form on 13.02.2002 itself, the informant had already filed the protest application, on receipt of final form notice was issued upon the informant who promptly responded but ultimately on 02.04.2003, in his absence, final form was accepted and the protest petition filed on 13.03.2002 was treated as complaint petition, numbered as C-381/2003 and transferred for disposal under Section 192 of the Criminal Procedure Code to another court, where vide order dated 22.07.2003, after inquiry cognizance was taken for offences under Section 323, 341, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and accused persons were ordered to be noticed. 5. Surprisingly enough, Investigating Officer of the case (Goreakothi P.S. Case No. 10/2002) submitted prosecution report dated 25.11.2003 stating therein that the informant by filing frivolous case obstructed police functioning so is liable for action against the informant under Section 182, 211 of the Indian Penal Code acting thereon cognizance was taken by impugned order which is under challenge. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that once the police after investigation submitted its report as required under Section 173(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, he may proceed for further investigation and submit its report taking the shelter of law as provided under Sub-section (8) of Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code, but, the investigating agency cannot take advantage of such provision for filing a prosecution report almost after a year of submitting outcome of the investigation in the shape of final form. In the instant case, even assuming the investigating agency has exercised its jurisdiction conferred under Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code, but, neither there was any subsequent investigation nor there is any material for such report. Moreover, no case is made out for the offence under Section 182, 211 of the Indian Penal Code and further cognizance for the offence under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code, if alone, is barred by limitation also. The learned Counsel further placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in a case of Nand Kishore Singh v. State of Bihar reported in 2009 (3) PLJR 53 and also earlier decision of this Court in a case of Ram Surat Sharma v. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 1988 East Cri 677 (Pat). 7. In case of Nand Kishore Singh (Supra) reliance has been placed upon a decision of the Apex Court reported in A.I.R. 1979 SC 777 (Kamalapati Trivedi v. The State of West Bengal); wherein at the time of submission of final form itself police recommended action against the informant for the offences under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code also and the court below summoned the informant after taking cognizance. But after discussing the relevant aspects and options available to the Magistrate after an investigation report was submitted. The Magistrate could agree with the report of the police and file the proceedings. If, he did not agree with the police report, he could order further investigation or hold that the evidence collected by the police was sufficient and proceed to take cognizance. 8. This was to be done after consideration of the report and application of mind of the Magistrate in the context of the same. The court then posed the question, "but then the problem to be solved is whether the order passed by the Magistrate pertains to his executive or judicial capacity". The court concluded that an order passed by the Magistrate agreeing with the police report and filing the proceedings is a judicial order determining the rights of the parties after application of mind. The order passed by the Magistrate in the proceeding has to be characterized as a judicial Act. The court concluded with the following conclusion at paragraph 61: 61. The order passed by the Magistrate in the proceeding has to be characterized as a judicial Act. The court concluded with the following conclusion at paragraph 61: 61. For the reasons stated, I hold that the complaint against Trivedi is in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed in relation to a proceeding in Court and that in taking cognizance of it the SDJM acted in contravention of the bar contained in the said Clause (b), as there was no complaint in writing either of the SDJM or of a superior Court. In the result, therefore, I accept the appeal and, setting aside the order of the High Court, quash the proceedings taken by the SDJM against Trivedi. 9. In the case of Nand Kishore Singh (Supra) while dealing with the applicability of Section 182 I.P.C. reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in Bir Bahadur Singh v. State of Bihar reported in 2007 (2) BBCJ 328 ; wherein it has been held by a Bench of this Court in paragraph 9 that Section 182 shall have no application where allegations be there under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code. 9. So far as the application under Section 182 I.P.C. is concerned, in view of the fact that cognizance has been taken on a matter in respect of a proceeding of the Court, Section 211 I.P.C. alone can be pressed into service and Section 182 I.P.C. shall not apply in such a proceeding under nature and circumstances, as referred to above. 10. It is required to be considered, that in case there is no application of Section 211 I.P.C. or the cognizance for the offences under Section 211 is barred, whether the impugned order with respect to Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code is sustainable? Apart from Bir Bahadur case (Supra) decision by another Bench of this Court in Ram Surat Sharma v. State of Bihar and Ors. Apart from Bir Bahadur case (Supra) decision by another Bench of this Court in Ram Surat Sharma v. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 1988 East Cri 677 (Pat); is applicable in this case and the impugned order to the extent taking cognizance for offence under Section 182 I.P.C. is barred by limitation as first information report was lodged on 19.02.2002, final form was submitted on 24.07.2002 prosecution report (vide Annexure - 4) was submitted on 25.11.2003, whereon cognizance was taken on 08.01.2004, whereas the prescribed period of limitation for taking cognizance for the offences under Section 182 as prescribed under Section 468(2)(b) Cr.P.C. is one year since punishment for offences under Section 182 I.P.C. prescribes is six months. 11. Apart from above, there is additional feature in the instant case that what was found wrong and false by the police during investigation compelling the investigating agency to submit final form followed by prosecution report was found prima facie true by the court in inquiry consequently, cognizance was taken against the accused persons named in Goreakothi P.S. Case No. 10/2002, G.R. No. 267/2002 in protest complaint case No. C-381/2003 vide order dated 22.07.2003 after inquiry. 12. In view of the above, if the impugned order is permitted to continue, it shall be nothing but abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, it is quashed and this application stands allowed.