(1.) With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing criminal proceedings instituted against the petitioners in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manendragarh, taking cognizance of commission of offence under Section 188 of the IPC on the basis of the charge sheet filed by the Police of Police Station Manendragarh. The petitioners moved an application under Section 195(1) of the Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate for closing the criminal case, which was rejected by the learned Magistrate vide its order dated 13-01-2010, which was challenged by filing revision, which too has been dismissed vide order dated 29-06-2011 giving rise to this petition.
(2.) The facts stated in the petition show that their existed a dispute between the petitioners and Bhaiyalal on one hand and Paras Nath Tiwari on the other. Proceedings under Section 250 of the Land Revenue Code were drawn and orders were passed by the Revenue Court, which was taken in appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), who passed an interim order on 04-03-1999 directing status quo to be maintained. On 29-06-2002, the Tahsildar submitted an application to the Town Inspector, alleging that the petitioners had committed offence under Section 188 of the IPC, as they disobeyed the directions issued by the Additional Commissioner on 04-03-1999. The police of Police Station Manendragarh registered offence under Crime No. 276/2002 and after completing investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manendragarh. On 19-07-2003, the Court after taking into consideration the material, framed charges for commission of offence under Section 188 of the IPC. During the pendency of the criminal proceedings, the petitioners moved an application on 19-02-2008, purporting to be under Section 195(1)(a) of the Cr.P.C. raising objections with regard to very maintainability of the criminal proceedings, particularly on the ground that no cognizance of particular offence could be taken, except in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 195(1)(a) of the Cr.P.C. The application was rejected vide order dated 13-01-2010 and thereafter, revision was filed, which was also dismissed on 29-06-2011.
(3.) Though, number of grounds are raised in the petition, the main plank submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners could not be subjected to criminal proceedings and prosecution on the basis of a report lodged by Tahsildar alleging commission of offence under Section 188 of the IPC, because in the matter of prosecution for commission of offence under Section 188 of the IPC, specific provisions have been made under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. which mandatorily provided that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 188 of the IPC, except on the complaint in writing of the concerned public servant or of some other public servant, to whom, he is administratively subordinate. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the only manner, in which, the prosecution could be launched against the petitioners was, by way of a complaint in writing, which could be submitted by the concerned Officer, who had passed the order, disobedience of which, was alleged. It is further contended that neither the Additional Commissioner, who passed the status quo order submitted any complaint before the Court nor any other public servant, to whom, the Additional Commissioner is administratively subordinate, submitted the complaint. Therefore, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceedings are without jurisdiction, being in teeth of provisions under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C.