The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory requirement of a written complaint by a public servant under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance of an offence under Section 188 IPC. The judgment emphasized the non-permissibility of taking cognizance without such a complaint, as established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court.

JUDGMENT :

Virender Singh, J.

1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No. 909/2019 registered at Police Station-Jhabua u/S. 153-B(1), 505(2) and 188 IPC and Section 123(1)(2) and 125 of the Representation of the People Act.

2. Whether the police can register FIR (u/s. 188 IPC), investigate the case and file the charge-sheet in respect of violation of order duly promulgated by any public authority, is the primary issue involved in this petition; which is squarely covered by and has been set at rest in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in C. Muniyappan case (C. Muniyappan and others vs. State of Tamilnadu, (2010) 9 SCC 567) and followed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jyotiraditya Scindia (State of Madhya Pradesh and another vs. Jyotiraditya Scindia 2014 SCC Online MP 1694). The relevant paras of the judgment delivered in Jyotiraditya Scindia case (supra) read as under:-

"4. Before the writ Court it was argued on behalf of the respondent/petitioner that for taking cognizance under Section 188 of IPC a compliant has be made to the Court directly having jurisdiction in the matter in respect of offence committed under Section 188 of IPC and it was not for the police to register a case against the offenders for an offence under Section 188 of IPC and then to submit a report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C., which is precisely the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants before us also. Reliance has been placed on a judgment delivered by a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Jiwan Kumar v. State of Punjab decided on 18-03-2008 reported in 2008 CriLJ 3576 : (2008) 2 PLR 675, Paragraphs-10 and 11 are reproduced as under:-

10. It is admitted case of respondent No. 3 that FIR No. 128 (P3) was registered against the petitioner on 16.6.2005 under Section 188 IPC. The petitioner was thereafter arrested and interrogated. After the completion of the investigation, the challan (final report under Section 173 of the Code) was presented against the petitioner before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mansa on 20.12.2005 and the charge was framed on 20.1.2006. Further that the case is now fixed for recording of prosecution evidence.

11. It is, thus, clear that the proceedings against the petitioner under Section 188 IPC have been initiated on the basis of the FIR and not on the basis of any complaint in writing of the public servant concerned as is required by Section 195(1)(a) of the Code. The registration of FIR and the launching of proceedings thereafter against the petitioner is not permitted by the Code and thus, cannot be allowed to be sustained. Resultantly, the petition is allowed. Promulgation order dated 27.5.2005 (P-2) issued by the District Magistrate, Mansa is quashed. Similarly, FIR No. 128, dated 16.6.2005 registered at Police Station City Mansa under Section 188 IPC (P-3) and all the proceedings taken thereunder against the petitioner are also quashed and set aside."

5. In view of the aforesaid, the learned Single Judge has further observed as under:-

"12. The Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that in respect of Section 188 of I.P.C., taking into account the statutory provisions as contained u/s. 195 of Code of Criminal Procedure a complaint has to be made in writing to the court by the Public Servant. The Division Bench has further held that it is not open for the Police to register a case against the offender u/s. 188 of I.P.C. and then to submit a report u/s. 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Thus, keeping in view the judgment delivered by the Division Bench, this court is of the considered opinion that action of the respondents in registering the FIR is certainly contrary to the statutory provisions as contained u/s. 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the FIR has to pave the path of extinction.

15. The Apex court in the case of C. Muniappan v. State of Tamilnadu reported in