Jitendra Kumar, J.—The present petitions have been preferred by the petitioners under Section 482 Cr.PC against the order dated 20.06.2015 passed by Shri Avinash Kumar, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Madhepura, wereby the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence punishable under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code against seven accused persons including the petitioner.

2. The prosecution case as emerging from the written report lodged by the Block Development Officer, Gamhariya, dated 13.04.2011 is that on the application of Shri Bijendra Narayan Yadav, Election Agent, Janta Dal (United), Sub Divisional Officer of Madhepura, vide Memo No. 907-2 and 908-2 dated 16.04.2014 had given permission for holding general meeting at Khel ground, Aurahi, Ekparaha, Block – Gamharia, Distt. Madhepura, on 17.04.2014 between 4:00 PM and 4:50 PM. But the public meeting was continued even beyond the given time and despite prohibition, Helicopter was landed, which is violation of model code of conduct.

3. On the basis of the written report, Gamhariya P.S. Case No. 66 of 2014 was lodged against sole accused Bijendra Narayan Yadav. Subsequent to lodging of First Information Report, investigation commenced and after completion of investigation, charge sheet No. 33 of 2014 dated 30.05.2014 was filed and in pursuance of the charge sheet, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance by the impugned order.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that as per the allegation made in the written report, no case is made out under Section 188 of IPC. No reference to any order/proclamation of the State Government, which has been violated by the petitioner, has been made in the written report, nor is any allegation in the written report that the alleged disobedience of the petitioner has caused or tended to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury or risk to any person lawfully employed, nor is any allegation that the alleged disobedience caused or tended to cause danger to human life, health or safety or riot or affray. Hence, Section 188 IPC is not attracted in the alleged facts and circumstances of the case.

5. He further submits that cognizance of learned Magistrate under Section 188 IPC is also not sustainable in view of Section 195(1)(a) Cr.PC, which provides that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 172 to 188, (both inclusive) of Indian Penal Code, except on the complaint in writing of a public servant concerned or by some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. But in the case on hand, no complaint was filed by the concerned public servant. In stead of complaint, written report was submitted before the police which registered FIR on the basis of the said written report and after investigation chargesheet was submitted and on the basis of which, cognizance of offence punishable under Section 188 was taken by learned Magistrate against the petitioner by the impugned order.

6. However, learned APP for the State defends the impugned order submitting that there is no illegality or infirmity in it and the present petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. To substantiate his submission, he submits that the offence under Section 188 IPC is a cognizable offence and hence, the police has rightly registered FIR and submitted charge-sheet and learned Magistrate has rightly passed the impugned order taking cognizance of offence punishable under Sections 188 and 171C of IPC against the petitioner. He refers to and relies upon Lalita Kumari vs. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1.

8. In view of rival submissions of the parties, it would be pertinent to refer to Sections 188 of IPC, which are as follows.—

“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 c