( 1 ) BY this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short code of Criminal Procedure), petitioners are seeking quashing of the case FIR No. 557/93, Under Sections 186/332/353/506/34 Indian Penal Code and Sections 39/192 of Motor Vehicles Act, P. S. Patel Nagar pending the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts are that on 25/08/1993, Constable Sukhbir Singh, lodged the report stating that he along with Constable Gopal Dutt were on official duty at DHG near Kachha Rasta, East Patel Nagar , delhi; they had instructions to check vehicles; at 2. 00 a. m. (night) one maruti car DL 2cd 5231 came from the side of Lal Mandir. It was-being driven by petitioner Gaurav arora, at a fast speed, under the influence of liquor. On suspicion Home Guard Gopal Dutt, No. 9305/dhg signalled the driver to stop. The car driver evaded the signal and gopal dutt had a narrow escape. The car could be stopped at a distance of about 10 paces. After stopping the car petitioner Gaurav Arora started abusing and assaulted Home guard Gopal Dutt his name plate was removed and he was held from his collar. In the meantime another person G. S. Arora, reached there, who slapped Gopal Dutt and his. cap fell down. when the complainant tried to intervene he was also assaulted. Several persons gathered there, who saved gopal Dutt. On this report, case was registered. Petitioners Gaurav Arora and Gurcharan Singh Arora were sent for medical examination- They were found under the influence of liquor. Police completed the investigation and filed the charge-sheet under Section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure along with the charge-sheet a complaint under Section 195 code of Criminal Procedure by the SHO of P. S. Satel Nagar was also filed. On 29/03/1994, the Magistrate took cognizance for the offence under Sections 186/332/353/506/34 Indian Penal Code and sections 185 and 39/192 of Motor Vehicles Act. On 2/08/1996 charge was framed under the aforesaid sections against the petitioners. On 12/12/1997, petitioners moved an application before the Court for dropping the charges. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed the application 5/03/1998. This order is under challenge. I have heard learned counsel for parties and have been taken through the record.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners argued that cognizance. of the offence under Section 186 Indian Penal Code could not be taken except on thecomplaint in writing of the public servant concerned or by some other public servant to whom he is subordinate under Section 195 Code of Criminal Procedure and that in the absence of such Complaint, the trial for the other offences under Sections 332/3. 53/506 Indian Penal Code is also not permissible. In support of his contention reliance was placed on the decisions of this Court in Gurinder Singh and anr. v. State, 1996 (2) C. C. Cases 396 (HC) and Vasudev v. State, Crimes 1984 (2) 599. Reliance was also placed on Ashok and others v. The State, 1987 Crl. L. J. 1758, ramji Bhikha koli and Ors. v. State of Gujarat, CCJ 1999 (2) 804.

( 4 ) LEARNED APP for State argued to the contrary and placed reliance on the recent Supreme Court decision in pankaj Aggarwal and Ors. v. State of Delhiand Anr. , 2001 (3) crimes 361 (SC) wherein their Lordships of the Supreme court after referring to the earlier decision in Durga charan Naik v. State of Orissa, AIR 1966 SC 1775 held that the offences under Sections 186, and 353 or 332 Indian Penal Code are distinct and in the absence of a complaint under Section 195 Cr. P. C. regarding the offence under Section 186 Indian Penal Code, trial for the offence under Section 353 or 332 indian Penal Code is not barred. It was held :-

"but in view of the judgment of this court in AIR 1966 SC 1775, where the court has analysed the provisions of section 253, Indian Penal Code and Section 186, Indian Penal Code and held that the two are distinct offences and the quality of the offen