Rajan Gupta, J.:- The present revision petition has been preferred against order dated 24th April, 2009, whereby charges were framed against the petitioners by the trial court (Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar) under Sections 307, 332, 353, 186 read with Section 34 IPC and 27/54/59 of Arms Act.

2. The case was registered on a written complaint made by Deputy Director, Income Tax (Investigation) Rohit Sharma, purportedly under Section 195 Cr.P.C. alleging that he alongwith Smt. Rajinder Kaur and other officials of the Income Tax Department and police officials reached House No.587-R, Model Town, Jalandhar in order to execute search warrants under Section 132 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. They reached there at 8.40 A.M. on 11th December, 2008. Search warrants dated 10th December, 2008 were served upon Savita Khanna wife of Yash Pal Khanna at about 8.45 A.M. on 11th December, 2008. Yashpal Khanna, whose name was also in the search warrant, was told that Income Tax Department wanted to carry out the search, on which he tried to lock himself in the bed-room. When the officials of the police and Income Tax Department resisted, said Yashpal Khanna started manhandling them. He took out a pistol from the drawer of his bedroom and started firing at them, as a result of which he received injury on his hand. It was further alleged that the petitioners fired 3-4 shots and thereafter the officials ran away to save their lives. It was also alleged that both the petitioners manhandled the team members and abetted the commission of offence. It was prayed that a case be registered against them. On the basis of the said complaint, a case under Sections 307, 353, 186 read with section 34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act was registered. Investigation of the case was conducted. Both the accused were arrested and after completion of investigation, challan was put in the competent court.

3. The accused were thereafter heard by the trial court on the question of framing of charge. Vide order dated 24th April, 2009. the court ordered framing of charge against both the accused (petitioners) under Sections 307, 332, 353, 186 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Resultantly, charges were framed against the accused on the same day i.e. 24th April, 2009.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has posed a serious challenge to the order framing charge on the ground that one of the charges framed against the petitioners is under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code. According to him, the same is not sustainable as cognizance of offence under Section 186 IPC can only be taken on a formal complaint being lodged with the court by the concerned public servant as provided in Section 195 Cr.P.C. According to him, no cognizance can be taken of offence under Section 186 IPC except in the manner provided by Section 195 Cr.P.C. In support of his contention, he has relied upon judgment of this court reported as Daulat Ram v. State of Punjab, 1962 (2) Crl. L.J. 286.

5. Learned counsel for the State has, however, submitted that contention of counsel for the petitioners is totally misplaced. According to him, if case a report is lodged with the police disclosing both cognizable and non-cognizable offences, police is competent to investigate both. He has relied upon judgment reported as State of Orissa v. Sharat Chandra Sahu, 1997 (1) Recent Criminal Reports 737, in support of his contention.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case.

7. It is evident that complaint was made by a public servant (Deputy Director, Income Tax) to the police regarding the entire episode. It was alleged that when officials of the Income Tax Department and the police arrived at the residence of the petitioners to execute search warrants, they were assaulted and even fired upon. Resultantly, FIR under Sections 307, 353, 186 read with section 34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act was regis