The mandatory requirement of a complaint in writing by the public servant concerned or an administratively subordinate public servant for taking cognizance of offences under Ss. 186 and 188 of the IPC, as per Sec. 195(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

JUDGMENT

SANDIPKUMAR C.MORE, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, heard fnally at the stage of admission.

2. The present petitioner, by invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has preferred this petition for quashing the F.I.R. in Crime No.0196 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Ss. 186 and 188 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "I.P.C.") dtd. 17/4/2020 registered with City Chowk Police Station, Aurangabad and the criminal proceedings arising out of the same bearing S.C.C. No. 7144/2020, pending on the fle of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad.

3. According to the present respondent No.2, who is the informant in this case, he was the member of squad of Zone-1 under the leadership of one Daulat Mhaske. The said squad was formed under the Divisional Head Mr. Pramod Jadhav, who was asked by the Municipal Commissioner, Aurangabad to do certain acts for prohibition of spread of Covid-19 under letter bearing [XXXX], dtd. 11/3/2020. Zone-1 squad of which the present respondent No. 2 was the Member, was supposed to act for doing certain prohibitory things in respect of spreading of Covid-19 in the areas of Mill Corner, Padegaon, Bhavsingpura, Budhilen, Aref Colony, etc. On 17/4/2020 respondent No.2 alongwith the members of aforesaid squad was taking round in the aforesaid Zone-1 and at about 4.10 p.m. they found 4 to 5 persons sitting in Relax Medical Shop at Mill Corner without wearing masks. Respondent No. 2 and his associates made them aware about the order of Commissioner of Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad dtd. 9/4/2020 and asked them as to why they did not wear the masks and for taking action about the same. Accordingly they asked one person who was without mask about his name. The said person told his name as Anis Ali. Therefore, as per rule respondent No. 2 and his associates prepared fne receipt and asked him to pay the same. However, one another person sitting in the said shop told Anis Ali for not to pay the fne amount as he had called the present petitioner, who is the husband of the then Corporator of Mill Corner Ward. Within short period the petitioner alongwith 2 to 3 persons came there in the said shop and threatened respondent No. 2 and his associates as to why they were taking action in his ward. The petitioner at the relevant time also told them that they had no right to take such action. As such, respondent No.2 lodged the aforesaid F.I.R. against the petitioner as he obstructed them while discharging their duties.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 2 was not at all a public servant, therefore, no question arises of lodging F.I.R. under Ss. 186 and 188 of I.P.C. by him. She further pointed out that in view of Sec. 195 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "Cr.P.C.") no Court can take cognizance of such F.I.R. and the crime registered on the basis of it. She further submits that fling of charge-sheet under the said crime is itself an abuse of process of law, and therefore, even if the allegations in the F.I.R. are taken as proved, then also no offence under aforesaid Sec. is made out.

5. Despite service of notice to respondent No.2, he remained absent.

6. Learned A.P.P. for respondent No.1 - State strongly opposed the submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioner and on the basis of investigation papers supported the action taken against the petitioner. According to the learned A.P.P., the concerned Investigating Offcer rightly arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner committed offences under Ss. 186 and 188 of the I.P.C., and therefore, the Investigating Offcer after due investigation fled charge-sheet against the petitioner in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class (3rd Court), Aurangabad.

7. It is signifcant to note that the prosecution has claimed that the petitioner has committed offences under Ss. 186 and 188 of the I.P.C., and therefore, for