Offences under IPC Sections 188 and 283 cannot be prosecuted without necessary complaints from public servants as required by Section 195 CrPC.

ORDER

The revision petitioner is the fifth accused in C.C.No.2922 of 2014 on the files of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, North Paravur.

2. The offences alleged in the said case are the offences under Sections 283 and 188 IPC.

3. The summons was issued to the revision petitioner to appear before the court below to answer the above said charge. Aggrieved by the order of the learned magistrate issuing summons to the revision petitioner, this revision petition has been filed.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The prosecution allegation is that on 28.2.2014 at about 9 a.m., the revision petitioner and the other accused obstructed the pathway leading to the house of the de facto complainant by putting up a compound wall and gate, violating the order passed by the Munsiffs Court in I.A.No.229 of 2011 in O.S.No.47 of 2011.

6. The Apex Court in Urmila Devi v. Yudhvir Singh [(2013) 15 SCC 624] considered the ratio in Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal and others [(2004) 7 SCC 338] and Subramanium Sethuraman v. State of Maharashtra and another [(2004) 13 SCC 324] and held that the order issued by the Magistrate deciding to summon an accused in exercise of his power under Sections 200 to 204 Cr.P.C. would be an order of intermediatory or quasi-final in nature and not interlocutory in nature and hence the revisionary jurisdiction provided under Section 397 can be worked out by the aggrieved party either before the Sessions Court or before the High Court. It was further held in Urmila Devi that since such an order of a Magistrate in deciding to issue process or summons to an accused in exercise of his power under Section

200 to 204 Cr.P.C., can always be subject-matter of challenge under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Thus, it is clear from the above decision that the revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. is available to the aggrieved party in challenging the order of the Magistrate directing issue of summons. In view of the above reason, this revision petition is maintainable.

7. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that Section 188 IPC contemplates orders made by public functionaries for public purposes and not an order made in a civil suit and hence the Magistrate cannot take cognizance of the offence under Section 188 IPC. A learned Single Judge of this Court in Joseph George v. State of Kerala [(2000) 3 KLT 275] held in paragraph 9 thus:-

“Any order announced in open court will be deemed to have been promulgated and the open declaration of the order in court would be deemed to be a notice not to the public at large but to the parties of the case in which the order is passed. An order duly pronounced in open court must be deemed to be duly promulgated so far as the parties to the case are concerned. Section 188 IPC contemplates orders made by public functionaries for public purposes and not an order made in a civil suit.”

8. It is clear from the above decision that Section 188 IPC does not contemplate orders passed by civil courts in judicial proceedings. That apart, no complaint was made by a public servant and hence, there is bar under Section 195 (i) (a) (i) Cr.P.C. in taking cognizance by the court. In the said circumstances, the offence under Section 188 IPC cannot be taken cognizance by the court below.

9. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the charge levelled against the petitioner under Section 283 IPC is also not sustainable on the ground that the act of obstruction of the pathway itself is an act of disobedience of the order of the court granting injunction. Section 283 IPC provides that whoever, by doing any act, or by omitting to take order with any property in his possession or under his charge, causes danger, obstruction or injury to any person in any public way or public line of navigation, shall be punished with fine which may