Judgment : 1. This petition is filed to quash proceedings in C.C.No.666/2013 on the file of IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:- First respondent herein filed a private complaint before IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad for the offences under Sections 182, 191, 193, 211, 384, 385, 420, 120-B & 34 IPC. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, after recording sworn statement of complainant and witness by name Shyamsunder Agarwal, took cognizance for an offence under Section 182 IPC against A1 alone though the complaint is filed against four accused persons. Now aggrieved by taking of cognizance by the learned IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, first accused in the complaint i.e., petitioner herein preferred present criminal petition challenging the orders mainly on two grounds. First ground is that for taking cognizance under Section 182 IPC, the Magistrate has to follow Section 195 Cr.P.C and that he has not followed. The second objection is the offence under Section 182 IPC is punishable with an imprisonment of six months and as per Section 468 Cr.P.C., there is a bar to take cognizance of the offence prescribing certain limitation and for the offence under Section 182 IPC, the period of limitation is one year but from the allegations in the complaint itself it is barred by time. 3. On the other hand, it is the contention of the first respondent i.e., complainant that the Magistrate has correctly taken cognizance for the offence under Section 182 IPC and correctness of the allegations are to be decided during trial only. It is further contended by the complainant that the petitioner herein in fact filed a discharge petition before the trial Court and simultaneously filed this criminal petition and obtained stay, because of which, that discharge petition is not decided. It is further contended on behalf of complainant that he is a layman and that he has no knowledge about the law and as per principles of natural justice, the Magistrate has taken cognizance and therefore, the same cannot be interfered. 4. Now the point that would arise for my consideration in this petition is whether the cognizance taken by trial Court is proper and correct? 5. Point: Admittedly, the complaint on the basis of which, cognizance was taken by the Court below is filed before IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 29-04-2013. 4. Now the point that would arise for my consideration in this petition is whether the cognizance taken by trial Court is proper and correct? 5. Point: Admittedly, the complaint on the basis of which, cognizance was taken by the Court below is filed before IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 29-04-2013. In the complaint, there are as many as eight offences attributed against the accused persons, but the learned Magistrate took cognizance only for the offence under Section 182 IPC though the complainant alleged that the accused have committed offences for the offences under Sections 182, 191, 193, 211, 384, 385, 420, 120-B & 34 IPC. It is also clear from the submissions of both sides, though the Court below has not taken cognizance for the other offences, the complainant has not challenged the order of the learned Magistrate for not taking cognizance for the other offences. Now we are concerned only with the offence under Section 182 IPC. To appreciate the submissions of both sides, it is better to extract the provision relating to offence under Section 182 IPC, which reads as follows:- “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 true 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.” 6. From a reading of the above provision, false information with an intention to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person is an offence, which is punishable with imprisonment of six months or with fine or with both. Now to attract the offence under Section 182 IPC, there must be material to show that some false information was given to a public servant. Now to attract the offence under Section 182 IPC, there must be material to show that some false information was given to a public servant. Nowhere, it is mentioned in the complaint on what date the alleged false information was given to the public servant i.e, police officer. It is also not referred in the complaint what is the false information that was given to the police officer? Crime No.71/2003 is registered on the complaint given by the petitioner herein, but police, after investigation, found that offence is not made out due to lack of evidence. Nowhere, it is stated in the final report that the complainant has given a false information to the police against the petitioner herein. Now according to Section 468 of Cr.P.C., cognizance in respect of an offence punishable for a term not exceeding one year has to be taken within one year. So the limitation as per Section 468 Cr.P.C., for an offence under Section 182 IPC is one year. This final report is signed by the Inspector of Police, Narayanaguda on 30-12-2004 and it is not known when the complainant herein has received this final report copy or when he came to know about this final report. Complaint is completely silent as to the date on which complainant came to know about this final report that was prepared on 30-12-2004. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this complaint has to be filed within one year from the date of knowledge when the complainant has not pleaded anything with regard to date of knowledge the date of the report has to be taken. So from 30-12-2004 within one year any complaint has to be filed for an offence under section 182 IPC. Admittedly, it is not filed within that time. 7. The next objection of the revision petitioner is that there is a bar under Section 195 Cr.P.C to take cognizance for an offence under Section 182 IPC and the learned Magistrate without noticing this provision took cognizance of the offence. 8. Admittedly, it is not filed within that time. 7. The next objection of the revision petitioner is that there is a bar under Section 195 Cr.P.C to take cognizance for an offence under Section 182 IPC and the learned Magistrate without noticing this provision took cognizance of the offence. 8. For this submission of the complainant i.e., first respondent herein is that he has no knowledge about the provision of law, but the learned Magistrate must aware of this provision and when he has taken cognizance, it must be treated that he has rightly taken cognizance and particularly considering the conduct of the petitioner herein and the documents filed along with the complaint. Now I feel it is better to read that Section 195 Cr.P.C, which reads 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; (b) (i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860 ), namely, sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or (ii) of any offence described in section 463, or punishable under section 471, section 475 or section 476, of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, or (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in sub- clause (i) or sub- clause (ii), except on the complaint in writing of that Court or by such officer of the Court as that Court may authorise in writing in this behalf, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate. (2) Where a complaint has been made by a public servant under clause (a) of sub- section (1) any authority to which he is administratively subordinate may order the withdrawal of the complaint and send a copy of such order to the Court; and upon its receipt by the Court, no further proceedings shall be taken on the complaint: Provided that no such withdrawal shall be ordered if the trial in the Court of first instance has been concluded. (3) In clause (b) of sub- section (1), the term" Court" means a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court, and includes a tribunal constituted by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act if declared by that Act to be a Court for the purposes of this section. (4) For the purposes of clause (b) of sub- section (1), a Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the appealable decrees or sentences of such former Court, or in the case of a Civil Court from whose decrees no appeal ordinarily lies, to the principal Court having ordinary original civil jurisdiction within whose local jurisdiction such Civil Court in situate: Provided that:- 1. where appeals lie to more than one Court, the Appellate Court of inferior jurisdiction shall be the Court to which such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate; 2. where appeals lie to a Civil and also to a Revenue Court, such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Civil or Revenue Court according to the nature of the case or proceeding in connection with which the offence is alleged to have been committed.” 9. From a reading of above provision, as per clause (1) (a) sub-clause (i), for the offences punishable under Sections 172 to 188 both inclusive, no Court shall take cognizance except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or some other public servant who is administratively subordinate. So it is very clear from the above provision, for an offence under Section 182 IPC, cognizance can be taken only on the complaint from a public servant or a subordinate to that public servant. Admittedly, complainant herein i.e., first respondent is not a public servant and he is a businessman. So it is very clear from the above provision, for an offence under Section 182 IPC, cognizance can be taken only on the complaint from a public servant or a subordinate to that public servant. Admittedly, complainant herein i.e., first respondent is not a public servant and he is a businessman. It is also clear from the record that police officer, who filed the final report has not given any complaint against the petitioner herein complaining offence under Section 182 IPC. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner, there is a clear bar under Section 195 Cr.P.C to take cognizance for an offence under Section 182 IPC. Here, admittedly, the learned Magistrate took cognizance only for the offence under Section 182 IPC though many offences are complained against the petitioner herein and other accused. So when a clear bar is there under Section 195 Cr.P.C., taking cognizance on the complaint of a private individual is not in accordance with law therefore incorrect. 10. For the above said reasons, the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate is not in accordance with law and the same is has to be quashed. Accordingly, petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.666/2013 on the file of IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 11. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal petition, shall stand disposed of.