JUDGMENT 1. - The instant misc. petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the order dated 16.6.2008 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 3, Bikaner in revision, whereby, the order dated 23.11.2006 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, No. 2, Bikaner in F.R.No. 13/2005 arising out of F.I.R. No. 274/2004, registered at the Police Station Sadar, Bikaner directing initiation of the proceedings under Section 211 Indian Penal Code has been affirmed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed an F.I.R. against the respondent No. 2 under the bona fide belief that he had given a wrong date of birth and thereby fraudulently procured employment in the Forest Department. Learned counsel submits that the police whilst investigating the case found that the date of birth given by the complainant in the Forest Department was incorrect, but, the complainant got the same rectified later on. Learned counsel submits that in view of the aforesaid facts, it is evident that the conclusion drawn by the learned trial Court whilst directing the petitioner's prosecution for the offence under Section 211 I.P.C., is absolutely fallacious and unwarranted. He submits that Section 211 I.P.C. would apply where the charge leveled by the accused against some other person is false. Learned counsel submits that prima facie the correctness of the petitioner's allegation was verified during investigation, but the F.R. was given for the reason that the petitioner was not the person cheated. Learned counsel thus urged that the direction to prosecute the petitioner for the offence under Section 211 I.P.C. by order dated 23.11.2006 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Bikaner is absolutely illegal and deserves to be set aside. 3. The respondent No. 2 was earlier represented by learned counsel Shri M.K. Garg and learned counsel Shri S.K. Verma, but, they pleaded no instructions on his behalf on 23.11.2012. 4. From a perusal of the order dated 23.11.2006, it is evidence that the learned Magistrate proceeded on the premises that the petitioner was not the person cheated by the wrong disclosure of the date of birth made by the respondent No. 2. The reasoning prima facie appears to be fallacious. Every citizen of the country has a right to initiate prosecution if he comes to know about the commission of a cognizable offence. The reasoning prima facie appears to be fallacious. Every citizen of the country has a right to initiate prosecution if he comes to know about the commission of a cognizable offence. Even if the attempt to cheat attributed to the respondent No. 2 was with the Forest Department, then too, it cannot be said that the petitioner could not have filed the complaint in relation thereto. 5. From a perusal of the F.R. given by the police in this case, it is evident that the petitioner's allegation regarding the respondent No. 2 Sunder Lal having supplied wrong information about his date of birth at the time of seeking employment was found to be correct. Further, the I.O. found that the respondent No. 2 had his date of birth corrected in the year 2003. 6. In this background of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Judge that the petitioner made a false charge of offence against the respondent No. 2 was absolutely unwarranted. Thus, the direction to prosecute the petitioner under Section 211 I.P.C. cannot be sustained.1 7. Resultantly, the misc. petition is allowed. The order dated 16.6.2008 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 3, Bikaner in revision affirming the order dated 23.11.2006 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Bikaner directing the petitioner's prosecution for the offence under Section 211 I.P.C. are hereby quashed.Record be sent back forthwith.Petition allowed. *******