IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-26961 of 2010 Date of decision : 14.9.2010 Amrik Singh …. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ….. Respondents Present : Mr. A.S. Khinda, Advocate for the petitioner. *** S.S. SARON, J. This petition has been filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of FIR No.31 dated 27.2.2010 (Annexure P1) registered at Police Station City, Kapurthala, District Kapurthala for the offence under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 195 CrPC relating to prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, no Court is to take cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 188 IPC except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. During the course of hearing it is admitted case of the petitioner that the charge-report (challan) has not been filed and only FIR has been registered. The registration of FIR and investigation of the case is per se not barred . It is the cognizance of taking the Crl. Misc. No. M-26961 of 2010 [2] offence by the Court which is barred. This position has been well de- alienated in the case of Jai Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2010 (1) RCR (Crl.) 350. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, referred to the case of Jivan Kumar v. State of Punjab, 2009 (1) RCR (Crl.) 415 DB (P&H). The said case relates to the stage when the charge report (challan) has been filed but that stage has not been reached at in the present case. The petitioner in the circumstances would be at liberty to raise the contentions at the time of taking cognizance of the offence by the Court concerned at the appropriate stage. However, at present, the registration of FIR and the investigation per se is not barred and it is taking of cognizance which is barred. The taking of cognizance is when the Court applies its mind. Therefore, there being no proceedings at this stage, the question of the Court applying its mind does not arise. In the circumstances, no ground for quashing the impugned FIR is made out at this stage. Crl. Misc. petition is accordingly dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE September 14, 2010 amit