JUDGMENT Usha Mehra, J.(1) This revision petition has been filed by one Shri Daulat Ram assailing the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge dated 18th February, 1991 thereby discharging the accused Rajinder Motwani and dismissing the complaint of the petitioner under Section 211/500 Indian Penal Code .(2) In brief, the facts of this case are that the petitioner is a landlord/owner of property bearing No. 3493, Gali Lallu Nissar, Qutub Road, Sadar Bazar, Delhi, and one Shri Sajjan Dass of Narain Market, was a tenant under him in respect of one room used as a godown on a monthly rent of Rs. 25.00 .The respondent and his father in order to blackmail the petitioners, started claiming the tenancy in the name of their firm M/s. Popular Stores.This they claimed because once upon a time Sajjan Dass was a partner in the said concern.Since the petitioner refused to recognise them as a tenant, the respondent and his father filed a civil suit on which a local commissioner was appointed to ascertain the possession of the party in the suit premises.The local commissioner found that the respondent was not in possession of the alleged godown.Having failed in their object, the respondent tried to dispossess the petitioner through illegal help and backing of the police and also tried to implicate falsely the petitioner in criminal cases.(3) The police officers visited the petitioner on 25/26th October, 1986 and informed him that there is a police report lodged against him for dispossessing the respondent and theft of articles and that he should report to the police station.The police official while contesting the bail application brought on record the report filed by the on the day when he applied his mind and passed the order of summoning.Therefore, the complaint which was filed by the petitioner dated 28t October, 1986 is hit by the Provisions of 195(l)(b), Criminal Procedure Code .Anticipatory bail was sought on 31.10.1986 because of the complaint filed by the respondent against the petitioner regarding the theft.Since the Magistrate exceeded his jurisdiction hence the Additional Sessions Judge was justified in quashing the order.Since the complaint itself was not maintainable, hence the revision is also not maintainable.(4) On the other hand, Mr. G.D. Gandhi appearing for the petitioner contended that Magistrate took cognizance on the day the petitioner filed the complaint i.e. 28th October, 1986 when the complaint was taken on record, it amounted to taking of the cognizance.Hence on 28th October, 1986, when the Magistrate took the cognizance no proceedings were pending.His complaint dated 23rd October, 1986 had been concealed by the police throughout.It this regard I am also supported by catena of judgments of the Supreme Court and High Court, reference can be had to the following authorities:1.Gopal Dass Sindhi and others Vs.2.Kamlapati Trivedi Vs.State of West Bengal .3.State of Punjab Vs.Brij Lal Palta .Allbert Accused No.1 Vs.5.Rejeshwar Prasad Misra Vs.6.Baijnath Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh .7.State of Himachal Pradesh Vs.Krishan Lal Pardhan and others 1987 Crl.8.State of West Bengal Vs.Bejoy Kumar Bose .

Cited provisions: Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code