JUDGMENT A. K. Mishra, J. - In this proceeding U/s. 482 Cr.P.C., prayer has been made to quash the order dated 10.03.2011 passed by the learned JMFC, Barbil in G.R. Case No.138 of 2007 arising out of Barbil P.S. Case No.72 of 2007, whereunder the learned JMFC, Barbil has taken cognizance U/s.420/120-B and 34 of IPC and issued summons against the present two petitioners who were practicing advocates of that court. For taking such cognizance, learned JMFC has considered charge-sheet i.e. police report filed in Barbil P.S. Case No.72 dated 13.04.2007. 2. Heard Mr. A. Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. S. Pattnaik, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate. Perused the certified copy of the order-sheet in G.R. Case No.138 of 2007, F.I.R. and other materials. The facts undisputed are that in G.R. Case No.423 of 2006, the accused Md. Firoj was allowed to be released in bail by the Addl. Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) Champua. On 27.10.2006, two bailors namely one Manglu Munda and another Mansingh Munda stood sureties filing affidavits and bail bonds. Learned JMFC, Barbil verified and being satisfied issued release order. On 16.11.2006, in presence of accused person, one surety namely Mansingh Munda was replaced by one Suka Mahakud on acceptance of his bail bond and verification of R.O.R. and Voter Identity Card. Both the present petitioners had made submissions for change of surety which was accepted. On 27.11.2006, the Magistrate received a Registered Letter from one Kande Munda alleging professional misconduct of the lawyers basing upon which the Magistrate ordered to issue notice to Kalia Munda to file show cause. The lawyers who identified the bailor Kalia Munda was asked to produce him. On the next date i.e. 23.12.2006 both Kande Munda and Kalia Munda appeared. Kalia Munda took time to file show cause. Separate file was ordered to be opened. 2(a). The show cause filed by Kalia Munda on 27.01.2007 in G.R. Case No.423 of 2006 was registered as Barbil P.S. Case No.72 dated 13.04.2007 U/s. 420/120-B/34 of IPC and after completion of investigation on receipt of charge-sheet, as stated above cognizance was taken of above offences by the learned JMFC, Barbil. 2(b). In the show cause which was registered as F.I.R., Kalia Munda has specifically admitted that being persuaded by one Md. 2(b). In the show cause which was registered as F.I.R., Kalia Munda has specifically admitted that being persuaded by one Md. Firoj and advised by two advocates, he impersonated himself as Mansingh Munda and practicing signature, signed in the documents and presented himself as surety. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has made the following submissions:- i. The totality of the allegations revolves around the fact that Kalia Munda impersonating himself as Mansingh Munda stood surety and three persons including the present two petitioners had persuaded him. The confessional statement made by Kalia Munda discloses an offence U/s. 205 of IPC of which cognizance is subject to limitation prescribed U/s. 195(i)(b) of Cr.P.C. Learned Magistrate in contravention of such mandate of law, has taken cognizance of a different offence on police report, as such, the same is liable to be setaside. ii. When certain objection was filed in G.R. record, the Court should have enquired it keeping Section 195, Cr.P.C. in view but could not have sent it to police for registration as an FIR as the objector had not intended the same to be registered as FIR. iii. The investigation even though illegal is apparently perfunctionary in nature for having not implicated the person who has confessed to have committed such impersonation and thereby, the author of crime has been kept out of prosecution net while two advocates, who acted bonafide to discharge their professional duties are chargesheeted. iv. If the petitioner advocates had guilty intention to take advantage of impersonation, they would not have made submission in the court to change the surety. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of above submissions assiduously urged to set aside the cognizance order as accused persons in furtherance of their professional duty conducted bonafide and the continuance of the proceeding would malign their reputations and cause prejudice in the society. 3(a). Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate Ms. S. Pattnaik does not dispute the facts leading to registration of F.I.R. and submits that omission of Investigating Officer to implicate Kalia Munda who has confessed about the impersonation cannot be the sole ground to quash the proceeding. 4. On perusal of allegation made in the objection, filed by Kalia Munda, it is clear that offence U/s. 205 of IPC was alleged therein. The said offence reads as follows:- "205. 4. On perusal of allegation made in the objection, filed by Kalia Munda, it is clear that offence U/s. 205 of IPC was alleged therein. The said offence reads as follows:- "205. False Personation for purpose of act or proceeding in suit or prosecution - Whoever falsely personates another, and in such assumed character makes any admission or statement, or confesses judgment, or causes any process to be issued or becomes bail or security, or does any other act in any suit or criminal prosecution, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both." 4(a). Cognizance has been taken U/s.420/120-B/34 of IPC. On the police report after registration of that objection as an FIR. Section 420 of IPC is an aggravated form of offence prescribed U/s. 419 IPC. Both Sections are reproduced below for ready reference:- "419. Punishment for cheating by personation.- Whoever cheats by personation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both." "420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.- Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine." 4(b). In the case of Manoranjan Khatua vs. State of Orissa reported in 1990 Criminal Law Journal 1583, it is held at para-6 as follows:- "6. In the case of Manoranjan Khatua vs. State of Orissa reported in 1990 Criminal Law Journal 1583, it is held at para-6 as follows:- "6. There is yet another aspect to consider the offence under Section 419, I.P.C. in relation to the principle laid down in AIR 1984 SC 1108 : (1984 Cri LJ 926), State of U. P. v. Suresh Chandra Srivastava It was held that law is now well settled that where an accused commits some offences which are separate and distinct from those contained in Section 195, the said section will affect only the offences mentioned therein unless such offences form an integral part so as to amount to offences committed as a part of the same transaction, in which case the other offences also would fall within the ambit of Section 195 of the Code. A similar view had been taken in AIR 1981 SC 1417 : (1981 Cri LJ 1019), State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy, in which it was held that in cases where in the course of the same transaction an offence for which no complaint by a Court is necessary under Section 195(1)(b)and an offence for which a complaint of a Court is necessary under that sub-section are committed, it is not possible to split up and hold that the prosecution of the accused for the offences not mentioned in Section 195(1)(b) of the Code should be upheld. Relying upon this decision, a learned Judge of the" Allahabad High Court in 1983 Cri LJ 24, Smt. Maharaji v. Rama Shanker, held in a case under Sections 419, 420, 467 read with Sections 120B and 109, I.P.C. that all the offences were alleged to have been committed in the course of the same transaction and as for an offence under Section 467 complaint by the court was necessary, similarly complaint by, the Court for the offences under Sections 419 and 420 was also necessary. In this case, the alleged offences according to the prosecution were committed in course of the same transaction. In this case, the alleged offences according to the prosecution were committed in course of the same transaction. The offences under Sections 466 and 471 cannot be split up from the offence under Section 419, I.P.C. It has been already held that complaint of the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was necessary for the offences under Sections 466 and 471 and so a similar complaint should also have been necessary by the said Court for the offence under Section 419, I.P.C. as well. The order of cognizance for the offence under Section 419 is, therefore, unsustainable." 5. Surety was accepted and changed as per law. The Orissa High Court has issued one letter/circular No.6627 dated 16/17t h July, 1998 regarding modalities to be followed at the time of granting bail to the accused persons. In that letter, out of several instructions given, the following few would indicate that Courts responsibility to maintain the purity of the proceeding cannot be abdicated. These are:- "(k) The Presiding Officer while verifying the record should affix the Court seal endorsing the case number and signature so as to make him sure to eliminate the professional bailor. (I) One copy of the photograph/photographs of bailor/bailers should be affixed to the bail petition to identify him/them in case he/they comes/come again to take other accused persons on bail. (m) The bailor/bailers having identity card/cards if any, issued to him/them as a voter/voters may not affix his photograph in his bail petition in case the said identity card is produced before the concerned Magistrate for verification of documents to know that the bailor/bailers is/are solvent to the bail amount. (n) If the bailor/bailers claims/claim to be the Government Servant/servants or employee/employees of any recognized institution he/they, would produce his/their pay certificate/certificates issued by competent authority. (o) Besides the concerned Presiding Officer may ask some questions such as names of the relations of the accused, name of the important persons of the area of the accused and other questions within the frame work of law to know whether the bailor/bailers is/are fake or/and professional." The change of surety is provided U/s.443 of Cr.P.C. which speaks as follows:- "443. Power to order sufficient bail when that first taken is insufficient.-If, through mistake, fraud, or otherwise, insufficient sureties have been accepted, or if they afterwards become insufficient, the Court may issue a warrant of arrest directing that the person released on bail be brought before it and may order him to find sufficient sureties, and on his failing so to do, may commit him to jail." 5(a). Once the above provisions are kept in view, it can be said that the objection filed in the record by Kalia Munda had disclosed only one offence i.e. U/s. 205 I.P.C. Learned JMFC, Barbil who has accepted the bail bond after verification, should have resorted to Sec.195 and 340 Cr.P.C. He should have recorded a finding as to whether it was expedient in the interest of justice to file complaint. As the purity of proceedings of the court is directly sullied by the crime, the court is considered to be the only authority to consider the desirability of the complaining against the guilty party as has been held in the decision reported in AIR 1931 Allahabad High Court 433 in Emperor vrs. Kushal Pal Singh referred to by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Iqbal Singh Marwah and another vrs. Meekakshi Marwah and another reported in 2005 (II) OLR (SC) 102. 6. The above leads to only one conclusion that sending that objection by Kalia Munda for registration of FIR was to evade the provisions of Section 195 of Cr.P.C. The facts undisputed should be considered in its entirety and when they disclose a specific offence requiring complaint U/s. 195 of Cr.P.C., the same should not have been evaded by resorting to devices or camouflage. The test whether there is evasion or not is whether the facts disclose primarily essentially an offence for which complaint of the court is required. The legislative firewall created U/s. 195 of Cr.P.C. cannot be dodged by the device of charging of person with an offence to which a Section does not apply. 7. Learned Magistrate having not resorted to Section 195 and 340 of Cr.P.C. has committed illegality. The legislative firewall created U/s. 195 of Cr.P.C. cannot be dodged by the device of charging of person with an offence to which a Section does not apply. 7. Learned Magistrate having not resorted to Section 195 and 340 of Cr.P.C. has committed illegality. The documents of the record filed as show cause containing confession of impersonation and revealing offence under Section 205 IPC for which Section 195 Cr.P.C. mandates filing of complaint should not have been sent for registration as an F.I.R. Because of this, impugned cognizance order is unsustainable in the eye of law and continuance of such proceeding will be an abuse of the process of the Court. 8. As a result, the order taking cognizance dated 10.03.2011 against the petitioners in connection with G.R. Case No.138 of 2007 arising out of Barbil P.S. Case No.72 of 2007 pending in the court of learned JMFC, Barbil is quashed. Accordingly, the CRLMC is allowed.