IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.45255 of 2007 RADHESHYAM SINGH & ANR Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Sandeep Kumar. For the State : Mr. Rajendranath Jha. --- 2/ 23.01.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. The petitioners question the first information report registered as Cheria Bariyarpur (Majhaul) P.S. Case No. 122/2007 instituted under Section 188 of I.P.C. pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai. The allegations in the Complaint lodged by the Police Officer are that the petitioners violated a Prohibitory Order under 145 Cr. P.C. and therefore, committed an offence under Section 188 of I.P.C. Section 188 of I.P.C. reads as follows: 188. Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant.- Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management, disobeys such direction, shall, if such disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person lawfully employed, be punished 2 with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both; and if such disobedience causes or tends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. Learned counsel for the petitioner invites the attention of the Court to Section 195(1)(a)(i) of the Cr. P.C. to submit that in any offence punishable under Section 188 of I.P.C., cognizance could be taken only on the complaint in writing by the public servant concerned. The person competent to lodge the case was the Court which passed the prohibitory order under 145 Cr. P.C. and that the F.I.R. by the Officer-in-charge of the police station was not maintainable. He relies upon a Judgment of the Supreme Court reported in A.I.R. 1962 SC 1206(Daulat Ram Vrs. State of Punjab). In the case of Daulat Ram, written information was given to Tehsildar by the former, who forwarded it to the Sub-divisional Officer who in his turn sent it to the Police. The police enquired into the facts and reported that the allegations were false. The Tehsildar asked the Police that a “calendar” (sic) be drawn up. The police, however, launched a prosecution against Daulat 3 Ram, the original complainant under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code. The question for consideration was if any complaint under Section 195 Cr. P.C. had been presented by the public servant concerned. It was held that the public servant concerned was the Tehsildar. It was on his complaint alone that proceedings under 195 Cr. P.C. could have been drawn up and not at the instance of the police. Applying that reasoning to the facts of the present case, Section 195(1)(a)(i) contains a complete bar to a Court to take cognizance except of a complaint made in the manner prescribed by the public servant concerned. Admittedly on the facts of the present case, there is no complaint in writing before the Court of the public servant concerned, whose order has been violated leading to an offence under Section 188 of I.P.C. The first information report lodged in that regard is therefore not maintainable much less the order of cognizance thereunder being prohibited by Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr. P.C. The entire proceedings in Cheria Bariyarpur (Majhaul) P.S. Case no. 122/2007 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai is, therefore, quashed. The application stands allowed. S.B.P. ( Navin Sinha,J )