HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.2152 of 2008 Date : 16.11.2011 Between : Kamal Narayan Agarwal & others. …..Petitioners And Gafoor & others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.2152 of 2008 ORDER : This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of proceedings in C.C.No.133 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Alampur. The respondents 1 to 4 herein are accused in Crime No.38 of 2007 on the file of P.S. Kodandapur. In the aforesaid crime, cattle was seized on 30th June 2007, alleging that the respondents/accused have violated the provisions under A.P. Cow Slaughter Prohibition and Animal Preservation Act, and Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. When such seizure of cattle was affected, the accused have filed Criminal M.P.Nos.718 of 2007, 719 of 2007, 720 of 2007 and 721 of 2007 in Crime No.38 of 2007, seeking for interim custody of the seized cattle pending disposal of the case. The said applications were allowed by common order dated 09.07.2007 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Alampur. After seizure, the cattle were given to the custody to the Imliban Goshala, situated at Gowliguda, Hyderabad. After release orders were passed by the learned Magistrate in Criminal M.P.Nos. 718 of 2007, 719 of 2007, 720 of 2007 and 721 of 2007, respondents 1 to 4 herein have filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. in C.C.No.133 of 2007 against the petitioners herein, alleging that the petitioners have violated the provision under Section 188 of I.P.C. by not releasing the seized property i.e. cattle which was given custody to Imliban Goshala. In the complaint, it is stated that the respondents 1 to 4 have approached the petitioners on 12.07.2007 and subsequently on 16.07.2007 and 18.07.2007 all the way going from Kurnool to Hyderabad, but the petitioners have refused to release the cattle belonging to them, thereby disobeyed the order passed in Criminal M.P. Nos. 718 of 2007, 719 of 2007, 720 of 2007 and 721 of 2007, thus, they are liable to be punished for the offence under Section 188 of IPC. This criminal petition is filed by the petitioners/accused to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.133 of 2007, stating that the aforesaid release orders are not served on them and that the said orders are issued against the Goshala but not against any individual. In any event, it is submitted that there is no basis for the allegation of committing offence punishable under Section 188 of IPC. On behalf of respondents 1 to4, written submissions are filed. Though appearance is filed on their behalf, there is no representation when the matter is taken up. In the written submissions, it is submitted that as the order is passed by a public servant and as the same was violated by the petitioners herein, they have committed an offence punishable under Section 188 of IPC. Section 188 of IPC deals with disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant. If any such disobedience is caused or tends to cause danger to human life, health or safety within the meaning of the aforesaid section, such persons shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months or with fine which may extend to Rs.1,000/-, or with both. The term ‘Promulgated’ used under Section 188 of IPC is interpreted by the High Court of Calcutta in the case of Nandalal Mitra Vs. State[1]. In the aforesaid judgment, it is held that Section 188 of IPC applies only in case of promulgation of order. It is stated that the word “promulgated” connotes two ideas; one is to make known of an order and the means by which the order is made known, must be by something done openly and in public. Having heard the learned counsel, I have perused the contents of the complaint. By taking the complaint as it is, there is no allegation of any order by the public servant in the instant case, as such, there is no basis for the allegation against the petitioners that they have committed any offence punishable under Section 188 of IPC. An order passed in the criminal applications cannot be construed as “promulgation” within the meaning of Section 188 of IPC. When particular orders are passed in the criminal applications, it is open to the respondents to take steps in accordance with the provisions contained under the Code of Criminal Procedure, but there is no basis for prosecuting the petitioners for the offence under Section 188 of IPC. As this Court is of the view that no case is made out under Section 188 IPC, if the proceedings are allowed to go on, it will be abuse of the process and result in miscarriage of justice. For the aforesaid reasons, the complaint registered against the petitioners is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, this criminal petition is allowed and C.C.No.133 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Alampur, is hereby quashed. It is stated that subsequently, in Crime No.38 of 2007 on the file of P.S.Kodandapur, respondents 1 to 4 are also acquitted. In that view of the matter, it is open for respondent 1 to 4 to take steps for release of cattle in accordance with law, by approaching the petitioners. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 16th November 2011 ajr [1] AIR 1968 CALCUTTA 523