JUDGMENT : -

Petitioner has filed this miscellaneous criminal case under section 482 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the FIR No. 395/2020 dated 2-7-2020 registered at Police Station Bhawarkua, Indore under section 188 of IPC along with the subsequent charge sheet dated 31-12-2020 filed against the petitioner.

2. Prosecution case in brief is that the complainant namely one Deepak Kardam has filed a complaint before the police station Bhanwarkua, Indore by submitting that the petitioner is having a Youtube channel namely trolly speak and has uploaded a video on his channel in which he has alleged speaking about the adversarial conditions pertaining to Covid -19 Pandemic in the area of Bhawarkua, Indore and due to which, the petitioner spread fear among general public and hence, violated the order No. 357-58/PA/200 dated 6-4-2022 issued by District Magistrate. On the basis of the said complaint, the police has registered the case under section 188 of IPC and now, charge-sheet has already been filed.

3. The petitioner challenges filing of the charge-sheet on the ground that offence under section 188 of IPC is not cognizable one and only a complaint under section 195 of Cr.P.C. can be filed by a government authorized officer and it is not open for all or to public to file a complaint to anyone under section 188 of IPC. Therefore, the proceedings are not maintainable and liable to be quashed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that the FIR and the Charge-sheet are totally illegal and liable to be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the law is well settled that when the law prescribes anything to be done in a particular manner then it has to be done in that manner only. Therefore, the respondent has not only ignored the legal provisions and registered the FIR against the petitioner without verifying the veracity of the conduct of petitioner and without even investigating into the matter. Hence, prays for quashment of the same.

5. Learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and submits that there is no perversity or illegality in the impugned orders and, therefore, this petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. is liable to be dismissed.

6. Heard both the parties and perused the record.

7. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to mention section 188 of IPC which read 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 rupees, 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. Illustration— An order is promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, directing that a religious procession shall not pass down a certain street. A knowingly disobeys the order, and thereby causes danger of riot. A has committed the offence defined in this section.

8. Further before proc