IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.18918 of 1999 1. SEIKH JAHANGIR ALAM, S/O MD. RAJA MIAN. 2. MUSTAQUE AHMAD @ MUSTAQUE ALI. 3. WAKIL AHMAD, PETITIONER NO.2 & 3 ARE SON OF MD. KASHIM, ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE-NEURI PURBI TOLA, P.S.BARAULI, DISTT-GOPALGANJ…………………...…..PETITIONERS Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. MD. HASHIM, S/O SEIKH GAFFOOR, R/O VILL-NEURI PURBI TOLA, P.S.BARAULI, DISTT-GOPALGANJ………………………OPP. PARTIES. ----------- For petitioners:- Mr. Dhananjay Kumar, Adv. Mr. Neeraj Raj, Adv. For the State:- Mr. Lala Kailash Bihari Pd. APP ----------- 3. 29-Apr-2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. The petitioners have challenged the order of cognizance dated 13.12.1997 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj in Barauli P.S. Case No. 60/97, Tr.No.649/98 on the ground that no cognizance could have been taken for an offence under Section 188 of the IPC except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. In respect of this proposition he has placed reliance upon the provision of Section 195(1) (a). 2 From Annexure-1 which is the first information report, it has been shown that the police case in question was instituted not on the complaint of any public servant but on the complaint of one Md. Hashim, a private person having land dispute with the petitioners. The FIR discloses that the informant categorically claimed existence of land dispute between him and the accused persons and that in a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. a prohibition order had been passed against both the parties and the matter was pending before the concerned court. Clearly on such complaint or information by a private party the police proceeded to investigate the allegation and submitted charge-sheet leading to impugned order of cognizance for offence under Section 188 of the IPC. The relevant provision under Section 195(1) (a) clearly create a bar on taking of cognizance on such private complaint for various offences including Section 188 which is mentioned in that Section. Hence, this Court has no option but to hold that the impugned order of cognizance is contrary to the provisions of Section 195 (1) (a) of the Code 3 of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the impugned order is quashed. This application stands allowed. perwez (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)