1. This writ appeal has been filed under section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 aggrieved of the order dated 19.11.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.7984/2011 allowing the petition filed by the respondent-petitioner.

2. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the judgment is not sustainable. It has been submitted that the writ Court has misconstrued the provisions of section 195(1) of CrPC as bar to take cognizance of offence under section 188 of IPC while registering the FIR.

3. We have gone through the order passed by the learned Single Judge, wherein it has been held as under :

“9. In the presence case, it is an undisputed fact that permission was granted by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sonkatch, District Dewas to hold a public meeting in respect of Bye-election of Vidhan Sabha, 2001, Sonkatch. Permission was granted on 11.2.2011. Clause 2 of the terms and conditions of the permission reveals that the permission was valid up to 5:00 p.m. As stated in the return, the meeting which was supposed to conclude at 5:00 p.m. continued till 5:05 p.m. with the aid and assistance of Public Addressing System (mike and speaker) and the meeting without mike and speaker continued till 5:15 p.m. In the present case, the petitioner has raised various grounds and his contention is that the ingredients of section 188 are not spelt out from the bare perusal of the FIR lodged in the matter. Section 188 of IPC reads as under :

“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 trends 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 ruppes, 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.”

10. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides for a procedure in respect of prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence. Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read as under :

“195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence. -- (1) No Court shall take cognizance --

(a) (i) of anyoffence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or

(ii) of any abetment of, attempt to commit, such offence, or

(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he administratively subordinate;

(b) (i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely, sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or

(ii) of any offence described in section 463, or pounisha