JUDGMENT 1. - Heard. 2. The instant misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 7.11.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh in Criminal Revision No. 4/2012 (5/2012) whereby he has rejected the revision petition filed by the petitioner and has upheld the order dated 17.12.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Tibi in connection with FR No. 18/2010 arising out of FIR No. 66/2010 of P.S. Tibi whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioner for offences under Sections 417, 177, 193 and 200 IPC. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that exfacie the prosecution of the petitioner for the said offences is illegal. He submits that on the very same allegations, the complainant filed an election petition against the petitioner and when he was unsuccessful in the same, the instant prosecution has been launched by the complainant which is nothing but an act of vengeance. He further contends that for the offence under Section 177 IPC, no cognizance can be taken in absence of a complaint filed by the public servant before whom the false information has been furnished. He submits that the election officer before whom the petitioner had filed the nomination form, has not filed any complaint. He thus urges that the prosecution of the petitioner in this case is illegal and hence, the orders impugned deserve to be quashed. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 submits that there is ample evidence on record which shows that the petitioner gave a false declaration in his nomination paper and thereby cheated the complainant. He submits that the false information was aimed to bypass the bar of not being able to contest the elections because of having three offsprings. He thus submits that the learned trial court rightly rejected the final report and took cognizance against the petitioner. He further submits that the order taking cognizance has also been affirmed in revision and thus, the instant petition is nothing but a second revision in the garb of miscellaneous petition. 5. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar and perused the impugned orders. 6. He further submits that the order taking cognizance has also been affirmed in revision and thus, the instant petition is nothing but a second revision in the garb of miscellaneous petition. 5. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar and perused the impugned orders. 6. From a perusal of the order passed by the learned Magistrate, it is clear that there is ample evidence on the record that the petitioner was having three children, out of which one was born after the cut off date i.e. 28.11.1995. Despite that, he gave a false declaration that no child was born to him after the said cut off date. The I.O. has collected the evidence to the effect that the third child was born to the petitioner in the year 2001, therefore, ex-facie the necessary ingredients of the offences under Sections 417, 177, 193 and 200 IPC can be said to be made out against the petitioner. 7. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of C. Muniappan and Ors. v. State of T.N. reported in AIR 2010 SC 3718 and particularly, para no. 27 thereof. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that in view of the restriction contained in Section 195(1)(a) Cr.P.C., the cognizance for the offences falling under Sections 170 to 188 IPC cannot be taken in absence of a complaint by the public servant concerned as warranted under Section 195 Cr.P.C. Thus, this argument carries force and the prosecution of the petitioner under Section 177 IPC, in absence of a complaint by the public servant, cannot be permitted to continued. 8. Resultantly, this misc. petition succeeds in part and the order taking cognizance dated 17.12.2011 to the extent of offence under Section 177 IPC is quashed but the same is sustained for the offences under Sections 417, 193 and 200 IPC.Stay petition also stands disposed of.Petition partly allowed. *******