Mere disobedience of an order promulgated by a public servant does not constitute an offense under Section 188 of the IPC unless it causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance, or injury to any person lawfully employed or causes danger to human life, health, or safety, or causes a riot or affray.

N.K.Sinha, J.

1. The petitioners in their application under Section 482, CrPC prayed for quashing of prosecution of petitionerNos. 1 and 2 for offences under Section 188 and 447, IPC pending before the sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna City.

2. The facts relevant for disposal of this application may only be stated. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are the Chairman and the Secretary respectively of Alka Sahnkari Grih Nirman Samiti Ltd., Patna, (hereinafter referred to as the Society) which is g body corporate and can institute and defend suit and other legal prccceedings. The Society has joined the application as petitioner No. 3. The Sub-divisional Magistrate O.P. No. 2 drew a proceeding under Section 144 Cr, P. C. on 24-12-1992 between Rita Singh O. P. No. 5 who was the first party and petitioner No. 1 and others who were the second party. A notice (Anxexure 1) was issued which purported to the land bearing 2 kathas in area ard appertaining to society plot No. 233. The contents of the notice have been described as absolutely vague general and hypothetical. The petitioners cafe is that the society had by a resolution dated 19-6-1992 bifurcated the plot into plot Nos. 233-A and 233-B both measuring 1 katha each plot No. 233-B was allotted to O. P. No. 5 and plot No. 233-A to one Sudhir Kumar Sharma by the same resolution and the decision was communicated to both of them. The society further decided that the previous allotment of the plot automatically stood cancelled. O.P, No. 5 was communicated cancelled. O. P. No. 5 was communicated the decision of the society by a letter dated 21-6-1992 copy of which is Annexure 2. It is further claimed that Sri Sudhir Kumar Sharma had already constructed his house in the plot allotted to him before initiation of the proceedings under Section 144, CrPC in December 1992. The entire proceedings under Section 144, CrPC has been described as a futile attempt oa the part of O. P. No. 5 to harass the petitioner.

3. By his order dated 30-9-1993 O.P.No. 2 directed filing of a com plaint against the petitioners under Section 188, IPC. A copy of the said order is Annexure 3. In his order O.P. No. 2 referred to an enquiry repart dated 25-9-1993 without disclosing it contents. In pursuance of the aforesaid order O.P. No. 2 filed the complaint in the court of Addl Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna City against petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and one Gopendra Prasad, the Secretary of the society, petitioner No. 3 for their prosecution for offences under Section 188 and 477, IPC. A copy of the complaint petition is Annexure 5, The learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate by his order, dated 25-11-1993 (Annexure 6) took cognizance uader Sections 188/447 IPC.

4. The application has been opposed both by the State as also O. P. No. 5 who has also filed a show cause. The case of O, P. No. 5 is that she had been allotted plot No. 233 of 2 kathas in area by the society vide letter dated 12-7-1983 after having paid the entire consideration money and had come in its possession. When her request to the Secretary of the society for registration of the said plot did not produce any result she filed a petition numbered as Miscellaneous Dispute No. 93/92 before the Additional Registrar, Co-operative Society under Section 48 of the Bihar and Orissa Go-operative Societies Act, 1935 on 14-12-1992 for compulsory registration of the disputed plot and for restraining the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 from making any alteration in the allotment of the said plot. An order was passed on that very day restraining the petitioners from making any alteration in the allotment of the said plot and it was communicated to them vide a memo dated 16-12-1992. A photo copy of the letter dated 16-12-1992 is annexed as Annexure C to the show cause. It was only thereafter that O, P. No. 2 initiated the proceeding under Section 144, CrPC after learning that the demarcation made by her on the disputed plot was being demolished by the society.

5. While a