T.M. Hassan Pillai, J.

The challan laid against the petitioner after conducting investigation alleging commission of offences under Ss.188 and 447 IPC by the Konni Police in Crime No. 418/95 is sought to be quashed invoking the inherent powers of this Court under S.482 Cr. P.C.

2. The gist of the charge levelled against the petitioner (annexure- a charge sheet) is that he committed breach of the injunction granted by the Munsiff Court, Pathanamthitta in O.S.269/1983 restraining the defendants in that suit and their men from trespassing into the Utupara Mamotil Rubber Estate comprised in Sy. No. 540-1-1-39 of Aruvapulam village belonging to CW1, or otherwise interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of that property, and in wilful and deliberate disobedience of the order of injunction petitioner drove his jeep bearing No. KCE/9691 through the road passing through the middle of that Estate and the offences alleged were committed by him on 23.7.95 at 12 noon.

3. The learned Magistrate (Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Pathanamthitta) took cognizance of the offences and issued process.

4. The foremost ground vehemently urged before me by learned counsel for the petitioner to Invoke the inherent powers of this Court for quashing the criminal proceedings is that even if it is proceeded on the premise that the Munsiff, Pathanamthitta, who passed the judgment and decree in O.S.269/1983 filed by CW1 under O. I. R.8 is a public servant an order promulgated by a public servant cannot refer to an order made by a public servant in the course of a civil proceedings between two parties and any breach of such order can fee adequately dealt with under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure but cannot be said that they are orders promulgated within the meaning of S.188 IPC; the disobedience of which would result in to obstruction, annoyance or injury. In support of his contention learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision rendered by the Allahabad High Court in Dalganjan v. State {AIR 1956 Allahabad 630) and the decision of the Travancore-Cochin High Court in Govindan v. Kmhtmn (AIR 1953 Trava-Co. 350).

5. The second limb of contention urged to stultify or to stall the criminal proceedings initiated is that since no public servant filed any complaint alleging commission of offence under S.188 IPC, S.195(1) Cr. PC. is a bar for taking cognizance of the offence and the learned Magistrate is not justified in taking cognizance of the offence under S.188 IPC. In support of the argument advanced, counsel relied on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court rendered in Chandra Rao v. Sambayya (AIR 1958 Andhra Pradesh 718). Learned counsel also relied on that decision to contend for the position that the charge levelled against the petitioner under S.447 IPC is also not sustainable on the ground that taking cognizance of that offence would amount to an evasion of the provisions of S.195 of the Cr. EC.., because in truth and substance the act of trespass was in itself an act of disobedience of the decree of the Court granting permanent prohibitory injunction.

6. Per Contra Shri, Ramakumar, learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that the first limb of the contention that the judgment and decree passed by the Munsiff's Court in O.S. No. 269/1983 restraining the defendants therein and their men from trespassing into the property involved in that suit and interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of that property by CW1 is not an order promulgated by a public servant is tenuous, specious and untenable and the contended that a judgment or order passed in open court constitutes a formal declaration to the public of the decision of the court in the case in which the order is given or the judgment is passed and pronouncement of a judgment in open court is a promulgation to the parties to that case. Munsiff who passed the judgment and decree is a public servant as defined in S.21 of IPC. He conte