ORDER :

V. BHARATHIDASAN, J.

1. This batch of Criminal Original Petitions have been filed challenging the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners. The major offence involved in all these cases is under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, along with other offences either under the Indian Penal Code or under other Special Acts.

2. Since the issues involved in all these Criminal Original Petitions are one and the same, all the Criminal Original Petitions were heard together and disposed by this common order.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in all these petitions would contend that, the issue involved in all the Criminal Original Petitions is already covered by a judgment of this Court in Jeevanandham and others Vs. State rep. by Inspector of Police reported in 2018 (2) L.W. (Crl.) 606. According to the petitioners, in all the cases, the petitioners have been charged with for an offence under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, and admittedly, in all cases, the respective complaints have been filed either by the Inspector of Police or Sub-Inspector of Police in the respective Police Stations. In some cases, after investigation, final reports have also been filed, and the learned Judicial Magistrates have also taken cognizance of offence, in some cases, the investigation is still pending.

4. According to the petitioners, as the offence under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code falls within the ambit of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'], Court cannot take cognizance, based on the First Information Report registered by the police and a final report filed thereafter under Section 173(2) of the Code. According to them, under Section 195(1)(a) of the Code, the Magistrate can take cognizance only on a written complaint by a public servant concerned or some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. In all the instant cases, no complaint has been filed by the public servant concerned, but, the First Information Reports have been registered by the Station House Officers, and in number of cases, the complainant himself has investigated the case and filed the final report under Section 173(2) of the Code, which is totally illegal. That apart, in respect of other offences for which the petitioners are charged, they are only consequential to the offence under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code. Once the very taking cognizance of the offence under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code is found to be illegal, consequently, other allied offences should also necessarily be quashed. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in some cases, would contend that the very filing of the final report itself is barred by limitation and the learned Judicial Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance of the offence, as taking cognizance is totally barred under Section 468 of the Code.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, in support of their contentions, would strongly rely upon the judgment in Jeevanandham's case cited supra, wherein this Court has held as follows:

"25. In view of the discussions, the following guidelines are issued insofar as an offence under Section 188 of IPC, is concerned:

(a) A Police Officer cannot register an FIR for any of the offences falling under Section 172 to 188 of IPC.

(b) A Police Officer by virtue of the powers conferred under Section 41 of Cr.P.C., will have the authority to take action under Section 41 of Cr.P.C., when a cognizable offence under Section 188 IPC is committed in his presence or where such action is required, to prevent such person from committing an offence under Section 188 of IPC.

(c) The role of the Police Officer will be confined only to the preventive action as stipulated under Section 41 of Cr.P.C. and immediately thereafter, he has to inform about the same to the public servant concerned/authorised, to enable such public servant to give a complaint in writing before the