Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.

1. Heard Mr. Jitendra Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Dr. Mayanand Jha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner has preferred the present application for quashing of the order dated 20th October, 2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patna City in Khusrupur P.S. Case No. 36 of 2014 corresponding to G.R. No. 953 of 2014 by which the learned Magistrate has summoned the petitioner after taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”).

3. The prosecution case, in brief, as made out from the FIR instituted on the written complaint of one Manoj Kumar, Revenue Karamchari, Khusrupur dated 26th March, 2014 is that a road show was organized by the Aam Aadmi Party on 26th March, 2014 in Khusrupur. The petitioner, being a candidate of Aam Aadmi Party, participated in the said road show which traveled through Station Road, Khusrupur Mirza Toli, Lodipur Gram, Mosimpur and to Bakhtiyarpur. For this road show, no permission had been granted by the senior officer for the use of two-wheeled vehicles. Without mentioning any further violations, it is alleged that as per Section 188 of the IPC, the model code of conduct has been violated.

4. On the basis of such written report, Khusrupur P.S. Case No. 36 of 2014 was registered on 26th March, 2014 against the petitioner under Section 188 of the IPC and investigation was taken up.

5. On completion of investigation of the case, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet vide Charge-sheet No. 29 of 2014 dated 26th July, 2014 under Section 188 and 172(H) of the IPC against the petitioner in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Patna City.

6. On perusal of the police report submitted under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C.), the learned Magistrate vide impugned order dated 20th October, 2014, finding a prima facie case to be made out against the petitioner under Section 188 of the IPC, summoned her to face trial. The said summoning order is under challenge in the present case.

7. It has been submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the order taking cognizance under Section 188 of the IPC and the very institution of the FIR are illegal from inception. He has submitted that from the contents of the FIR, charge-sheet and other materials placed before the learned Magistrate, none of the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 188 of the IPC are attracted. It is contended that the FIR does not contain any allegation of wrong doing on the part of the petitioner and does not make any mention of the order of the public authority which had been allegedly violated by the petitioner.

8. Referring to the provisions prescribed under Section 188 of the IPC and Section 195 of the Cr.P.C., it has been submitted that the mandatory pre-requisites contained in Section 195(1) of the Cr.P.C. have been violated by the investigating authorities and the trial court has erred in taking cognizance of the offence notwithstanding the clear provision of Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. In support of his submissions, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following decisions of the Supreme Court and the High Court :

(1) State of U.P. v. Mata Bhikh & Others [(1994) 4 SCC 95]

(2) C. Muniappan and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu [(2010) 9 SCC 567]

(3) Pratik Sinha v. State of Bihar [2016(4) PLJR 274]

(4) Dharmesh Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar (Cr.Misc. No. 41702 of 2015) (unreported)

(5) Anirudh Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar (Cr.Misc. No. 33259 of 2013) (unreported)

9. On the other hand, Dr. Mayanand Jha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate. He has submitted that the petitioner was found to be engaged in election campaign when the Model Code of