JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. A.K. Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar alongwith Mr. Vishwanath Ray, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-State.

3. The petitioner has preferred the present criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the entire proceedings in connection with Angara P.S. Case No. 23 of 2014 dated 11.03.2014 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1449 of 2014 including the order dated 03.09.2014 / 09.05.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi whereby and whereunder he has been pleased to take cognizance against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 143 and 188 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 126(1)(a) of the Representation of People Act, 1951. The case is said to be pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi.

4. Arguments on behalf of the parties were advanced on 10.12.2021, 11.02.2022 and 18.02.2022.

Arguments of the Petitioner

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the present case, cognizance has been taken for the offence under Sections 143 and 188 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 126(1)(a) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 on the basis of a police report.

6. He further submitted that so far as Section 143 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the same is punishment for being a member of an unlawful assembly and unlawful assembly has been defined under Section 141 of the Indian Penal Code. Referring to the definition of ‘unlawful assembly’, the learned counsel submitted that none of the ingredients of unlawful assembly is satisfied in the present case. He submitted that even as per the allegation in the F.I.R., the so-called meeting was convened in the premises of the school.

7. He further submitted that considering the allegations made in the present case, the offence under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code is also not made out as the basic ingredients of the offence under 188 of the Indian Penal Code are not satisfied.

8. The learned counsel further submitted that as per the provisions Section 195 of Cr.P.C., no court shall take cognizance of offence, unless a complaint petition is filed by the person who is either superior or the person who had issued the prohibitory order. Learned counsel submitted that in the present case, prohibitory order was issued by the S.D.O. and the F.I.R. has been lodged by the Block Animal Husbandry Officer, who was deputed as the Magistrate. He submitted that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the cognizance could not have been taken under Section 188 IPC.

9. Learned counsel referred to a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court reported in 2019 SCC Online Patna 654 (Pashupati Kumar vs. State of Bihar) decided on 13th May, 2019 and a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Madras High Court reported in 2019 SCC Online Madras 35292 (Thanuskodi and Another vs. Inspector of Police and Another) decided on 18th November, 2019 and further referred to another judgment passed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court reported in 2016 SCC Online Patna 3622 (Dharmesh Prasad Verma vs. The State of Bihar). He submitted that in these cases, it has been clearly held that no cognizance can be taken for the offence under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of police report. He further submitted that these judgments are based on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2000) 1 SCC 278 (M.S. Ahlawat vs. State of Haryana and Another) and AIR 1962 SC 1206 (Daulat Ram vs. State of Punjab).

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2012) 5 SCC 1 (In Re: Ram lila Maidan Incident Vs. Home Secretary and Others) Para-320 and submitted that in the present case also, the basic ingredients of the offence under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code are not made out. He also submitted that in the