JUDGMENT V.G. Oak, J. - This revision application arises out of a proceeding u/s 188, I.P.C. There was a case u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure In that case an order was passed u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure keeping the property in dispute under attachment. The Court decided that the property should be left in the custody of Sri Hukum Singh Mukhtar. Sri Hukum Singh Mukhtar reported that Chatter Singh and others encroached upon the attached property. The learned Magistrate called a report from the local police, and was satisfied that the custodian's report was correct. So the learned Magistrate filed a complaint against Chatter Singh and seven others u/s 188, I.P.C. The eight accused filed an appeal against the order filing the complaint u/s 188, I.P.C. The appeal was dismissed by the learned Civil and Sessions Judge of Muzaffarnagar. Chattar Singh and others have, therefore, come to this Court in revision. 2. Mr. Aqiq Hasan appearing for the State urged that, the learned Magistrate's order filing the complaint was not open to an appeal u/s 476B, Code of Criminal Procedure Even if the appeal before the learned Sessions Judge was incompetent u/s 476B, Code of Criminal Procedure it is always open to this Court to examine whether the proceedings before the learned Magistrate himself were proper. It is not, therefore necessary to decide the question whether the appeal was maintainable. The substantial question for determination is whether, on the facts alleged by the prosecution, the accused can be said to have committed an offence u/s 188, I.P.C. 3. Section 188, I.P.C. runs thus: 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 possession or under his management, disobeys such direction,...shall...be punished.... 4. For purposes of this revision, we may assume that the learned Magistrate was a public servant, and the order u/s 146 Code of Criminal Procedure was an order promulgated by him lawfully as a public servant. In order to attract Section 186 I.P.C. it must be shown that the accused was directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management. 5. In order to attract Section 186 I.P.C. it must be shown that the accused was directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management. 5. We are in this case dealing with an order passed by the learned Magistrate u/s 146, Code of Criminal Procedure such orders are to be passed in Form XXIII of Schedule v. of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to this form, such orders ought to run thus: Whereas it has been made to appear to me that a dispute..., I have decided that neither of the said parties was in possessions of the said..., I am unable-to satisfy myself as to which of the said parties was in possession.... This is to authorise and require you to attach the said...by taking and keeping possession thereof, and to hold the same under attachment until the decree or order of a competent Court determining the rights of the parties or the claim to possession, shall have been obtained, and to return this warrant with an endorsement certifying the manner of its execution. 6. It will be seen that, by an order u/s 146, Code of Criminal Procedure the Court directs the custodian to keep the property in dispute in his charge and possession till further orders from a competent Court. It may be that the parties to the dispute are aware of the passing of such an order. But the order is directed, not to the parties themselves, but to the custodian. Such an order does not direct the accused to abstain from any act or to take a certain order with respect to the property in dispute. So even if we assume that the accused persons encroached upon the attached property, such encroachment will not amount to an offence u/s 188, I.P.C. 7. In Nagoji Ramachandra v. Queen-Empress 9 M.L.J.R. 253, it was held that, disobedience to an order passed by a Magistrate u/s 146, Code of Criminal Procedure is not an offence falling u/s 188, I.P.C. 8. It may be that the present applicants are guilty of trespass. In that case the proper remedy is to file a complaint for criminal trespass u/s 447, I.P.C., or to file a civil suit for trespass. The complaint filed by the learned Magistrate u/s 188, I.P.C. was misconceived. 9. The revision application is allowed. It may be that the present applicants are guilty of trespass. In that case the proper remedy is to file a complaint for criminal trespass u/s 447, I.P.C., or to file a civil suit for trespass. The complaint filed by the learned Magistrate u/s 188, I.P.C. was misconceived. 9. The revision application is allowed. The complaint filed by the learned Magistrate against Chhattar Singh and seven others u/s 188, I.P.C. is cancelled, and the proceedings are quashed.