1. Petitioner is the accused in a complaint filed by 1st respondent. Cognizance taken for the offence under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, for short, the 'IPC' on such complaint Magistrate ordered process to him. Petitioner has filed the above petition challenging that order, for quashing the complaint and criminal proceedings against him, as an abuse of process of the court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for short, the 'Code'.

2. Annexure-I is copy of the complaint. Case of the complainant, in short, is that petitioner has given false particulars over his educational qualification in the affidavits filed by him when he contested the election on three different occasions, in 2001, 2006 and 2011, from Pathanapuram Constituency; in two publications, viz., "12th Kerala Legislative Assembly "WHO's WHO", published by Research Section, Secretariat of the Kerala Legislature in May, 2007 and, "Legislatures of Kerala" published by Secretariat of the Kerala Legislature in the year 2006; and, also, in his website in which his biography is published. Regarding his educational qualifications in the affidavits and publications made, he has given different versions, in some of them as a 'B.Com graduate" and in some others "Course Completed" and, thereby, he has committed the offences under Sections 191 and 193 of the IPC, is the case of complainant to prosecute the petitioner for such offences. Learned Magistrate recording the sworn statement of complainant and perusing the documents produced took cognizance of the offence under Section 193 of the IPC and ordered process to the accused. Annexure-II is copy of that order. Petitioner/accused seeks quashing of the criminal proceedings against him invoking the inherent powers of this Court. With the petition, he has filed some documents as Annexure-I to Annexure-V.

3. The 1st respondent in the petition, hereinafter referred to as the "complainant" resisting the petition has filed an affidavit with some documents marked as Annexures R1(a) to R1(f).

4. Learned senior counsel Sri. K. Ramakumar appearing for petitioner contended that cognizance taken of the offence on the complaint is illegal since it is vitiated by the bar under Section 195 (1) (b) (i) of the Code. In relation to an affidavit sworn to and placed with a nomination paper if false particulars are made in such affidavit, then, the authority to file a complaint thereof can only be the Returning Officer and a complaint by a third party as in the present case is clearly barred, is the submission of counsel. At best on the allegations imputed a complaint for offence under Section 125-A of the Act alone would lie, and its prosecution can be made only by a Returning Officer is the submission of counsel. Reliance is placed on an unreported decision rendered by this Court in a writ petition (W.P.(C). No.29574 of 2008), producing a copy of the judgment as Annexure-III. Complaint does not contain the essential ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 193 of the IPC which was taken cognizance by Magistrate, and, the allegations set out in the complaint clearly demonstrate that entertainability of that complaint is barred by limitation is the further submission of counsel. The above offence is imputed for giving false evidence by filing an affidavit containing false particulars, with nomination paper, and then, at the worst it would fall only under second part of 193 IPC, giving false evidence in a case other than judicial proceeding, and it is punishable only upto a term of three years, submits the counsel. A complaint filed in 2011 raising allegations over the filing of an affidavit containing false particulars with a nomination paper in 2006, to prosecute the accused, is clearly barred by limitation under Section 468 of the Code, is the submission of counsel. Adverting to Section 33-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, for short, the 'Act', it is contended by counsel that information