In this petition, filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner/accused seeks quashing of proceedings in C.C.No.155 of 2014 on the file of I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District.

2) The brief facts of the case are that LW1Mandal Development Officer, Tadepalligudem was deputed as Coordinator, Election Model Code of Conduct during General Elections held in 2014. LW2E.O.R.D. Pentapadu was deputed as Team leader, Flying Squad No.3 whereas LW3 Assistant Sub-Inspector and LW4Police Constable of Tadepalligudem Town Police Station were deputed as members of Flying Squad No.3 and L.W5videographer was deputed to assist LW2. While so, on 05.05.2014 at about 12 Noon when LWs.2 to 5 were moving in Tadepalligudem Town and when they reached bus stand road, they noticed the petitioner/accused who was contesting as independent candidate of Tadepalligudem Constituency, taking out a walkprocession with 300 members approximately without having any permission and thereby causing public nuisance in the town. The Flying Squad noticed that the accused and his members violated the Model Code of Conduct and orders promulgated by the election officers. On that LWs.2 to 5 gave a report to L.W1. He in turn gave a report to Station House Officer, Tadepalligudem Town Police Station for taking necessary action. The Sub-Inspector Town Police Station of Tadepalligudem registered a case in Cr.No.149/2014 under Section 188 IPC and investigated and filed charge sheet before the I Additional JFCM, Tadepalligudem who has taken cognizance and registered the case as C.C.No.155 /2014. Hence, the petition by the petitioner/accused.

3) Heard.

4) Besides denying the commission of offence as alleged, learned counsel for petitioner argued that even assuming that charge sheet allegations were to be true, the police have no power to receive the report and investigate and file charge sheet in view of express bar provided under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. in respect of offence under Section 188 of IPC. Learned counsel vehemently argued that the Court can take cognizance only upon the complaint made by the concerned public servant and not otherwise. He thus submitted that continuation of proceedings before learned Magistrate will be nothing but abuse of process of law and prayed for quashing the said proceedings. He relied upon the following decisions.

1. Daulat Ram vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1962 SC 1206)

2. M.sudhakara Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2000(2) ALT (Crl.) 142 (AP))

5) Upon hearing the petitioner and perusing the relevant law, this Court agrees with the petitioner.

Sections 195 to 199 Cr.P.C. act as an exception to general rule that any person can set criminal law in motion. Sections 195 to 199 Cr.P.C. would disclose that in respective of certain offences, criminal law can be set into motion by certain qualified persons only. The present offence under Section 188 IPC is one such offence and the person who is entitled to set the criminal law in motion is detailed in Section 195 Cr.P.C. So, it is apt to peruse Section 188 IPC and Section 195 Cr.P.C. which are as follows:

Section 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 with simple 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 trends 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