Sadanand Mukherjee, J.

1. This is an application for quashing the order dated 15.6.2004 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Champaran, at Motihari in N.F. No. 21 of 1996 whereby and whereunder learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has rejected the show-cause filed by the petitioner and took cognizance of offence under Sections 182 and 211 of the I.P.C. against the petitioner.

2. This petitioner lodged Kesaria P.S. Case No. 70 of 1995 under Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substance Act wherein he has stated that one Pramod Kumar Singh @ Drona Kumar Singh exploded bomb in front of his house to threaten him. The Investigating Officer recovered the materials showing the use of explosive substance from the place of occurrence. Apprehending that the police will submit final report the petitioner filed a protest petition before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate.

3. The police in collusion with the accused persons submitted final report wherein the occurrence was shown as true but the allegation against the accused persons was shown as false. The police recommended initiation of proceeding under Sections 182 and 211 of the I.P.C. against the petitioner. It is submitted that on protest petition the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Motihari, examined the petitioner on S.A. and four other witnesses. However, the learned Judicial Magistrate erroneously dismissed the complaint petition on the ground that materials recovered from the place of occurrence were not tested.

4. On the basis of the final report since permission for initiation of proceeding under Sections 182 and 211 I.P.C. was sought the petitioner was asked to show-cause wherein with reference to several paragraphs of the case diary, statements of the witnesses were quoted, stating that the offence under Sections 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act was made out. The said show-cause was rejected and cognizance was taken under Sections 182 and 211 of the I.P.C. against the petitioner.

5. The grounds taken on behalf of the petitioner are that the police report which forms basis of the present proceeding is false and contrary to the material evidence of record. Besides that it has been contended that the provisions of law, as contained in Sec.195(1)(b) Cr. P.C. provide that cognizance for offence under Sec.211 I.P.C. can only be taken if a complaint is made in writing by the court concerned or by a superior court. It is also submitted that the petitioner has no interest in prosecution of any particular person but he has given an information regarding an offence committed which caused fear among him and his family members. It has, therefore, been submitted that no offence under Sec.182 and 211 I.P.C. is made out. In this connection record was called for. From perusal of the order of taking cognizance under Sections 182 and 211 I.P.C. it appears that the only reason given for taking cognizance is that the show-cause is not satisfactory. No reasoned order has been passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate.

6. On behalf the petitioner reliance has been placed on a decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Kamalapati Trivedi V/s. The State of West Bengal as reported in - in which a three Judges Bench of the Hon ble Supreme Court while dealing with Sec.195 Cr. P.C. in relation to an offence under Sec.211 I.P.C. held that if the action of the Magistrate in agreeing with the report under Sec.169 Cr. P.C. are understood to be under proceeding in or in relation to court, a complaint may be preferred by the Magistrate without giving an opportunity to the complainant to satisfy the Magistrate about the truth of his case. While relying upon the aforesaid decision it is submitted that under Sec.195 Sub-section (1) Clause (b) or Clause (C) Categorically provides for making a complaint by the Court after a preliminary enquiry which means that the person against whom the complaint is preferred has an opportunity to show why a complaint should not be preferred a