ORDER : In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in connection with GOCR No. 42 of 2011 arising out of Meharma (Balbadda) P. S. Case No. 136 of 2011 including the order dated 24.10.2011 passed by Sri S. N. Lamay, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Godda whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under Sections 182/211 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. A complaint case was instituted by the petitioner being P.C. R. Case No. 508 of 2011 which was sent to the police for institution of a First Information Report under the provisions of Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure pursuant to which Meharma (Balbadda) P.S. Case No. 136 of 2011 was instituted. 3. After investigation, since the allegations were found to be false, police had submitted final form being Final Form No. 40-of 2011 dated 20.09.2011. Pursuant to submission of the final form vide order dated 08.10.2011 notice was served upon the petitioner to which a protest-cum-complaint petition was filed on 16.01.2012. In the meantime, a recommendation was made by the Investigating officer on 21.10.2011 for initiating a proceeding under Sections 182/211 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and vide order dated 24.10.2011 passed in GOCR No. 42 of 2011 cognizance was taken for the offences punishable under Sections 182, 211 of the Indian Penal Code. The final form which was submitted by the police was accepted by the learned court below on 16.01.2012 and pursuant to the protest-cum-complaint petition filed by the petitioner after conducting an enquiry cognizance was taken for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 379, 504 of the Indian Penal Code in terms of the order dated 11.07.2012. 4. Heard Mr. Purnendu Kr. Jha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Manoj Kr. Sah, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parities Nos. 2 to 15. 5. It has been submitted by the leaned counsel for the petitioner that the cognizance under Sections 182/211 of the Indian Penal code could not have been taken against the petitioner before acceptance of the final form. Jha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Manoj Kr. Sah, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parities Nos. 2 to 15. 5. It has been submitted by the leaned counsel for the petitioner that the cognizance under Sections 182/211 of the Indian Penal code could not have been taken against the petitioner before acceptance of the final form. It has been submitted that protest-cum-complaint-petition instituted by the petitioner was in continuation to the First Information Report so instituted and without finally deciding the matter there was no occasion for the learned court to have proceeded against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 182/211 of the Indian Penal Code. Submission has been advanced that taking of cognizance in terms of the impugned order dated 24.10.2011 is pre-mature and against the settled canons of laws and such proceeding initiated at the behest of the Investigating Officer deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. Mr. Manoj Kr. Sah, learned counsel appearing for the opposite patty nos. 2 to 15, has submitted that no error has been committed by the learned Magistrate while taking cognizance for the offences punishable under sections 182, 211 of the Indian Penal Code . It has been submitted that the dispute as alleged in the complaint petition is absolutely frivolous in nature and infact the complaint petition could have been dismissed outright instead of referring it to the police under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this context, he has referred in the judgment in a case of Thermax Limited And Others vs. K. M. Johny And Others reported in (2011) 13 SCC 412 . Submission has, therefore, been advanced that the police had rightly submitted the final form and subsequent recommendation for initiating a proceeding under sections 182, 211 of the Indian Penal Code which was acted upon by the learned Magistrate and, therefore, there being no illegality in the order taking cognizance, the present application is liable to be dismissed. 7. Before adverting to the contentions raised on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner it would be necessary to first consider the issue raised by the opposite party no. 2 to 15 with respect to section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. Before adverting to the contentions raised on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner it would be necessary to first consider the issue raised by the opposite party no. 2 to 15 with respect to section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the case of Thermax Limited And Others vs. K. M. Johny And Others (Supra) the primary conditions necessitating for referring a case to the police under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been discussed and it is quoted hereinbelow:- “34. The principles enunciated from the abovequoted decisions clearly show that for proceeding under Section 156(3) of the Code, the complaint must disclose relevant material ingredients of Sections 405, 406, 420 read with Section 34 IPC. If there is a flavour of civil nature, the same cannot be agitated in the form of criminal proceeding. If there is huge delay and in order to avoid the period of limitation, it cannot be resorted to as a criminal proceeding.” 8. However, the judgment referred to above by the learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 to 15 is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case as challenge has been made to the subsequent recommendation by the Investigating Officer and taking congnizance of offences punishable under Sections 182/211 of the Indian Penal Code. Since the question which has been raised in this present petition is with respect to the validity, legality or otherwise of initiation of a criminal proceeding against the petitioner under Sections 182/211 of the Indian Penal Code, the institution of the criminal case and making a reference to the police under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. does not have much bearing in finally deciding the issue at hand. 9. On being noticed, the petitioner had filed protest-cum-complaint-petition on 16.01.2012 on which date the final form was also accepted. Prior to acceptance of the final form pursuant to the recommendation of the Investigating Officer cognizance was already taken under Sections 182/211 of the Indian penal Code vide order dated 24.10.2011. It appears that the Final Form was submitted as false on 20.09.2011 and subsequently in a separate communication made by the Investigating Officer on 21.10.2011 in which recommendation for initiating a proceeding under Sections 182/211 of the Indian Penal Code was made. It appears that the Final Form was submitted as false on 20.09.2011 and subsequently in a separate communication made by the Investigating Officer on 21.10.2011 in which recommendation for initiating a proceeding under Sections 182/211 of the Indian Penal Code was made. Once notice was issued to the informant on account of the final form being submitted by the police the question of accepting the recommendation of the Investigating Officer and initiating the proceeding under Sections 182/211 of the Indian Penal Code is premature. Simultaneous proceeding for and against the veracity and genuineness of the allegation cannot exist as the probability of a peculiar situation being brought to the anvil cannot be discarded. The learned court was precluded from taking cognizance on the recommendation of the Investigating Office before acceptance of the final form and precisely the opposite has happened as although final form was accepted on 16.01.2012 but cognizance was taken for the offences punishable under Sections 182/211 of the Indian Penal Code on 24.10.2011 itself. Moreover, the protest petition was treated as complaint petition and upon enquiry cognizance was taken for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 379/504 of the Indian Penal Code and summons were ordered to be issued against the accused persons. 10. The complaint case itself was a fallout or in continuance of Meharma (Balbadda) P.S. Case No. 136 of 2011 and pendency of such case is another reason why cognizance should not have been taken for the offences punishable under Sections 182/211 of the Indian Penal Code. 11. Consequent to what has been discussed above, I find merit in this application. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the entire criminal proceedings in connection with GOCR No. 42 of 2011 arising out of Meharma (Balbadda) P.S. Case No. 136 of 2011 including the order dated 24.10.2011 passed by Sri S.N. Lamay, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Godda is, hereby, quashed and set aside.