JUDGMENT 1. - The short question involved in this misc. petition is as to whether cognizance for the offence under Section 182 I.P.C. can be taken without there being a complaint made by Public Servant concerned. 2. Briefly stated the facts necessary for' the disposal of the misc. petition are that the petitioner filed a complaint against Mahipal Singh Choudhary, respondent No. 2, who was the SHO, Police Station Bigod at the relevant time for the offences under Sections 166, 167, 211, 323, 342 and 500 I.P.C. in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mandalgarh. The complaint was proceeded with under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate by order dated 28.5.2007 proceeded to reject the complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 203 Cr.P.C. and simultaneously by the same order he directed cognizance to be taken against the petitioner for the offence under Section 182 I.P.C. 3. The petitioner challenged the order taking cognizance by way of filing a revision petition and the learned revisional Court too by order dated 11.6.2008 upheld the order passed by the learned Magistrate. Hence this misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioner challenging the orders of the learned Courts below as well as all the proceedings sought to be taken against him. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that by virtue of Section 195(1)(a) Cr.P.C. cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 172 to 188 I.P.C. cannot be taken except on the complaint made in writing by the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. 5. Learned counsel submits that cognizance in this case could only have been taken upon a complaint being filed by the SHO Mahipal Singh Choudhary or his senior officer. Thus, he prays that the instant misc. petition deserves to be accepted and all the proceedings initiated against the petitioner by the learned Magistrate deserves to be quashed. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor is also not in a position to dispute the aforesaid legal and factual aspects. 7. The provisions of Section 195(1)(a) read as under : "195. Thus, he prays that the instant misc. petition deserves to be accepted and all the proceedings initiated against the petitioner by the learned Magistrate deserves to be quashed. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor is also not in a position to dispute the aforesaid legal and factual aspects. 7. The provisions of Section 195(1)(a) read as under : "195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offence 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 to 1860), or (ii) of any abatement 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." Section 182 I.P.C. reads as under : "182. False information, with intent to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person-Whoever gives to any public servant any information which he knows or believes to be false, intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, such public servant- (a) to do or omit anything which such public servant ought not to do or omit if the state of facts respecting which such information is given were known by him, or (b) to use the lawful power of such public servant to the injury or annoyance of any person, shall be punished 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." 8. Section 182 I.P.C. would be applicable if the petitioner had given a false information to the public servant i.e. the SHO. This admittedly is not the position in the case at hand. 9. In the instant case, the alleged false information has not been given to the public servant but has allegedly given by way of the complaint filed. in the Court and therefore otherwise also Section 182 I.P.C. is not applicable to the facts of the instant case. 10. In this view of the matter, it is apparent that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner are without jurisdiction and absolutely unwarranted. in the Court and therefore otherwise also Section 182 I.P.C. is not applicable to the facts of the instant case. 10. In this view of the matter, it is apparent that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner are without jurisdiction and absolutely unwarranted. Ex facie, merely because the petitioner has filed a false complaint in the Court, it cannot be said that the petitioner has committed an offence under Section 182 I.P.C. The offence if any could be said to be committed by the petitioner would be covered under Section 211 I.P.C. Obviously, in this case, no cognizance has been taken for the said offence. 11. Resultantly, this misc. petition succeeds. The order dated 11.6.2008 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bhilwara rejecting the revision and affirming the order dated 28.5.2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mandalgarh and all other subsequent proceedings thereto are hereby quashed. Stay petition is disposed of accordingly. Re o the learned trial Court be sent back forthwith.Petition allowed. *******