CRM No.M-10031 of 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-10031 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:August 29, 2011 Jai Singh ...........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & others ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Surinder Gandhi, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.G.S.Brar,Assistant Advocate General, Punjab ** Sabina, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (for short `Cr.P.C.) seeking quashing of Complaint No. 191 dated 10.12.2007 (Annexure P4) under Section 195 of the Indian Penal Code (for short `IPC') filed by the District Magistrate Sangrur in the Court of SDJM Moonak under Section 188 IPC against petitioner and 87 other persons named in the complaint for violation of order promulgated under Section 144 Cr.P.C. in District Sangrur. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that CRM No.M-10031 of 2010(O&M) 2 the petitioner and other accused were not aware that there was proclamation under Section 144 Cr.P.C. in District Sangrur on the alleged day. The petitioner alongwith others were part of the Padyatries' from 2.9.2007 to 8.9.2007. The Padyatries' reached village Jalor on 8.9.2007. Petitioner along with 87 Padyatries' were arrested and were sent to Sangrur Jail. The Executive Magistrate Moonak discharged the petitioner and other 87 Padyatries' on 17.9.2007. FIR No. 107 dated 9.9.2007 was registered against the petitioner and other Padyatries' under Section 188 IPC at the instance of Assistant Sub Inspector Surjit Singh. The petitioner challenged the FIR in this Court on the ground that no FIR could be registered by the Police under Section 188 IPC and the proceedings under Section 188 IPC could only be initiated on the basis of a complaint made by the public servant. However, Civil Writ Petition No. 2552 of 2009 was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 12.8.2009. Since the petitioner had already remained in custody, the present complaint was liable to be quashed. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the petitioner as well as the other Padyatries' had violated the proclamation issued under Section 144 Cr.P.C. and hence, were liable to be proceeded under Section 188 IPC. Admittedly, the petitioner and others were arrested by the Police for offence under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. and 188 IPC. All the Padyatries' including the petitioner were taken to Police station Lehra on 9.9.2007 and were arrested . DDR No. 21 dated 9.9.2007 for the offence under Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. was registered and FIR No. 107 dated 9.9.2007 was registered under CRM No.M-10031 of 2010(O&M) 3 Section 188 IPC against the petitioner and others. Petitioners were discharged under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. on 17.9.2007. Petitioners challenged the lodging of the FIR under Section 188 IPC. In the present case, petitioners had earlier filed Civil Writ Petition No. 2552 of 2009 seeking quashing of the FIR in question. The said petition was dismissed by this court vide order dated 12.8.2009 and it was held as under:- “Thus, we are of the opinion that the investigations can be carried out by the police on a First Information Report in respect of a cognizable offence. The police could investigate into the offence under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code being a cognizable offence but the Court could not take cognizance except on a complaint of a public servant. The process adopted by the respondent is in tune with such interpretation. The bar under Section 195(1)(a) of the Code is only against the Court taking cognizance of the matter except on a complaint by a public servant. In the instant case, a public servant, in fact, moved the Court to take cognizance of the matter and,therefore, it cannot be said that there is any infraction of the provisions of Section 195(1)(a) of the Code.” Now the petitioners has again filed the present petition seeking quashing of the complaint. In the present case, the plea of the petitioner-Jai Singh is that he was not aware of proclamation under Section 144 Cr.P.C. Further learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner and Padyatries' remained in custody for 15 days . All the CRM No.M-10031 of 2010(O&M) 4 said pleas can be taken by the petitioner during trial. However, no ground for quashing of the criminal proceedings is made out as the criminal proceedings have been initated against the petitioner qua disobedience to an order lawfully promulgated by a public servant causing obstruction and annoyance to persons lawfully employed. No ground for interference by this Court is made out. Dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge August 29, 2011 arya