RAKESH KUMAR, J.:–Heard.

2. The present petition was filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short “Cr.P.C.”) with a prayer to quash an order dated 24-05-2000 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Araria (hereinafter referred to as “Magistrate”) in Case No. CC 19/1997. By the said order, learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of offence under Sections 211 and 182 of the Indian Penal Code (in short “IPC”) and summoned the petitioner. Further, the petitioner has also prayed for quashing of order dated 24th May, 2001 passed by the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Purnia (hereinafter referred to as “Addl. Sessions Judge”), whereby, Cr. Revision No. 349 of 2000/Tr. No. 32 of 2000 was rejected, which was preferred against the order of cognizance.

3. Short fact of the case is that initially, on the basis of written report filed by the petitioner, an F.I.R., vide Araria P.S. Case No. 244 of 1996, was registered for the offence under Sections 379 & 511 of the IPC. In the F.I.R., it was disclosed by the petitioner that from the pond of the petitioner, stealthily fishing was done and lock of the house of the petitioner was tampered. In the F.I.R., the petitioner had not disclosed name of any of the persons. Accordingly, F.I.R. was lodged against unknown. After investigation, police found the case as false and as such, while submitting final report, police filed a prosecution report dated 28-07-1996, which was received in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 22-01-1997. Thereafter, since it was a prosecution report submitted by the public servant, the learned Magistrate, on perusal of the prosecution report by order dated 24-05-2000, took cognizance of offence under Sections 182/211 of the IPC and directed for issuance of process.

4. Sri Uday Bhanu Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order on two grounds. Firstly, it was submitted that offence under Section 211 of the IPC is not at all made out, in view of the fact that the petitioner had not tried to implicate any person and F.I.R. was lodged against unknown. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, in absence of allegation of falsely implicating anyone, one may not be prosecuted under Section 211 of the IPC. He further submits that order of cognizance is also liable to be set aside simply on the ground that it was passed after expiry of period of limitation, as prescribed under Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. He submits that only accusation, which is disputed, is in relation to an offence under Section 182 of the IPC, for which, maximum sentence of imprisonment prescribed is six months. Accordingly, for such offence, order of cognizance was to be passed within a period of one year from the date of occurrence, whereas, in the present case, prosecution report was prepared on 28-07-1996, whereas order of cognizance was passed on 24-05-2000. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that though, order of cognizance was liable to be set aside, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, without appreciating the provision, has rejected the revision preferred by the petition in a mechanical manner. Accordingly, it has been prayed to set aside both the orders i.e. order of cognizance as well as order of revisional court.

5. Sri Parmeshwar Mehta, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner.

6. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. Fact remains that F.I.R. was lodged against unknown. Meaning thereby that at the time of lodging information before the police, it was apparent that there was no intention on the part of the petitioner to falsely implicate anyone. Accordingly, F.I.R. was lodged against unknown. Since, there was no allegation of falsely implicating anyone, the Court is of the opinion that the learned Magistrate was not justified in taking cognizance in respect of offence under Section 211 of the