Important points:
" An offence punishable under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained since there was no complaint given by any public servant as envisaged under Section 195 of the Code.
" A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But, it has to be seen whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence.
" In Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills vs. Rajvir Industries, AIR 2008 SC 1683 documents of unimpeachable character should not be taken into consideration by this Court for the purpose of finding out as to whether continuance of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of Court.

1. The petitioner is the sole accused in the case registered as Crime No. 875/2017 of Vattiyoorkkavu police station under Sections 188, 447 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. She seeks to quash Annexure-A1 first information report registered against her, by invoking the power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code).

2. The case against the petitioner was registered on the basis of the first information statement given to the police by the third respondent. The material averments in the first information statement are as follows: The son of the third respondent owns two acres and thirty seven cents of property. The third respondent is the power of attorney holder of her son. The petitioner is the wife of the brother of the third respondent. There are civil cases pending with regard to the title and possession of the aforesaid property. On 15.05.2017, the petitioner trespassed into the aforesaid property and cut an anjili tree standing therein, causing a loss of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the third respondent and her son. Such an act was committed by the petitioner in violation of the direction of the civil court to maintain status quo with regard to the property.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and also the learned counsel for the third respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that registration of the case against the petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained since there was no complaint given by any public servant as envisaged under Section 195 of the Code. Learned counsel also contended that the title and possession of the petitioner and her daughter over the property involved had been declared by the civil court and therefore, the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 427 I.P.C. will also not lie against the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the third respondent contended that the first information report (Annexure-A1), which is based on the statement given by the third respondent, discloses commission of the offences punishable under Sections 188, 447 and 427 IPC by the petitioner and therefore, this Court would not be justified in quashing the proceedings against the petitioner by invoking the power under Section 482 of the Code.

6. Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code reads 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 certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management, disobeys such direction, shall, if such disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person lawfully employed, be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both; and if such disobedience causes or tends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

Explanation - It is not necessary that the offender should intend to produce harm, or contemplate his disobedience as likely to produce harm. It is sufficient that he knows of the order which he disobeys, and that his disobedience produces, or is likely to produce, harm."

7. The ingredients of the offence under Section 188 I.P.C. are the following:

(1) There was promulgation of an order by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order.

(2) Such order directed the accused to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management.

(