I.A. Ansari, J.

Heard Mr. Khurshid Alam, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, and Mr. Manoj Kumar Jha, learned Assistant Counsel to Government Pleader No.26, appearing on behalf of the State-respondents. Heard also Mr. Shivendra Kishore, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent No.7.

2. With the help of this writ petition, made under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who, according to his own admission made at para 7 of this writ petition, had been running a Plastic Scrap Factory, situated at Sector-B, New Azimabad Colony, Sandalpur Road, Patna, which falls under Alamganj Police Station, seeks quashing of Alamganj Police Station Case No.48 of 2016, registered under Sections 188/290 of the Indian Penal Code, Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, and Section 15 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, for causing noise pollution.

3. On the basis of an information, given in writing, by one Mathura Baraik, Sub-Electoral Officer-cum-In-Charge Officer, City Control Room, Patna City, alleging to the effect, inter alia, that the petitioner herein had been unauthorisedly running a plastic factory and causing thereby foul smell, the case aforementioned came to be registered, treating the said information as First Information Report,. Having registered the case aforementioned, police has investigated the case and submitted a police report within the meaning of Section 173(2)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is also the grievance of the petitioner that police have sealed his factory and he is, therefore, unable to shift the factory even if he wishes to do so.

4. In the writ petition, a counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents indicating therein, inter alia, that by order, dated 23.05.2014, a notice to close the factory, in question, had been issued by the Principal Secretary, Bihar State Pollution Control Board, as far back as on 23.05.2014, but notwithstanding the order to close the factory, the petitioner had been running the factory. By means of rejoinder, which the petitioner has filed, the petitioner has submitted that he was never communicated the order, dated 23.05.2014, which the respondents claim to have been passed.

5. In the present writ petition, we are concerned with the question as to whether the Alamganj Police Station Case No. No.48 of 2016, registered under Sections 188/290 of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 15 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 read with Noise Pollution (Regulation & Control) Rules 2000, need to be quashed or not.

6. There is, no doubt, as has been submitted by Mr. Khurshid Alam, learned Counsel for the petitioner, that Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code is not attracted to the case at hand. It is also pointed out, and correctly so, that Section 290 of the Indian Penal Code is non-cognisable and, therefore, the police had no power to investigate the case.

7. In view of the fact that investigation, having been completed into an offence under Section 290 of the Indian Penal Code, which was non-cognisable, charge sheet has admittedly been submitted against the accused under Sections 290 of the Indian Penal Code, what needs to be made clear is that when police, having investigated a non-cognisable offence, submits police report, it will be treated, in the light of the provisions of Section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as a complaint and it would remain open to the learned Magistrate concerned to take cognizance of appropriate offence(s) if materials disclose commission of such an offence.

8. So far as offence under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the learned Magistrate shall bear in mind the provisions of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which dis-empowers the Magistrate from taking cognizance of an offence under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code except on the complaint, in writing, of the public servant concerned or of some other public serva