This is a petition by the petitioners who are four in number, praying that the proceedings started before the Magistrate under Ss. 188, 447 and 425, Indian Penal Code on complaint filed by the Magistrate against them be quashed. (2) The facts necessary are that on an application made by one Ganapatrai Dhamika proceedings under Sec­tion 145, Criminal Procedure Code were started against the present petitioners. During the proceedings the Magistrate ordered the attachment of the property. There­after Ganapatrai Dhanuka made an application before the Magistrate that in spite of the attachment order, the present petitioners have trespassed upon the land and thus violated the order of attachment. The prayer was that they should be prosecuted under Ss. 188, 447 and 426, Indian Penal Code. On that complaint the Magis­trate filed1 a complaint under Ss. 188, 447 and 425, Indian Penal Code against the present petitioners. The case was transferred to another Magistrate who issued processes against the present petitioners to appear and meet the charges under Ss. 188, 447 and 425, Indian Penal Code. The petitioners went up in revision to the Sessions Judge against the order issuing process on the ground that the order was illegal. The Sessions Judge refused to refer the matter to this court. Thereupon the present petition has been filed. (3) Two points mainly have been urged by the counsel for the petitioners. Firstly it is stated that there being no prohibitory order passed against the present petitioners and served on them, no offence under S. 188, Indian Penal Code is made out. It is stated that S. 188 is not attracted to a case of bare order of attachment passed under S. 145, Criminal Procedure Code but to a prohibitory order directing one of the parties not to do any act in respect of the land and as there was no offence on the face of it under S. 188, no process should have been issued against the present petitioners. As regards Ss. 447 and 427, Indian Penal Code it is contended that the Magistrate! was not competent to file any complaint under S. 447 in his capacity as a public servant and that being so, the Magistrate was not competent to proceed against the petitioners under Ss. 447 and 426 on the aforesaid complaint. (4) In my opinion there appears to be force in this contention of the petitioners. was not competent to file any complaint under S. 447 in his capacity as a public servant and that being so, the Magistrate was not competent to proceed against the petitioners under Ss. 447 and 426 on the aforesaid complaint. (4) In my opinion there appears to be force in this contention of the petitioners. It has been laid down in two decisions of this court - (1) Dibakar Talukdar v. The -State, AIR 1961 "Assam 94 and (2) Atar Khan v. The State, AIR 1960 Assam 109 - that S. 188, Indian Penal Code would not be attracted to a case where there is no prohibitory order served on any of the parties to the pro­ceedings under S. 145, Criminal Procedure Code. A mere order of attachment does not attract Sec. 188, Indian Penal Code. Section. 188 requires the violation of an order which is duly promulgated. In a case , whore there is no prohibitory order, it cannot be said that a mere order of attachment is an order duly promulgated under Sec. 188, Indian Penal Code. Thus Sec. 188 will not apply to a case of the violation, of the mere order of attachment. (5) It was then contended by the opposite party in this case that even though Sec. 188 may not be attracted, still there was no bar to the Magistrate filing a complaint under Sees. 447 and 426, Indian Penal Code, and secondly it is urged that the cognisance can be said to have been taken under Sec. 190 (l)(c), Criminal Procedure Code of the Magistrate was competent to take the cognizance, then the issue of process cannot be quashed on the ground that certain procedure was not followed by the Magis­trate. Section 437, Criminal Procedure Code will be at­tracted in such cases. In my opinion if the complaint is not covered by any of the provisions of Sec. 195, Criminal Procedure Code, then it cannot be said to be a complaint filed either by a Court or by a- public servant in the dis­charge of his official duty and thus the proviso to Sec. 200, Criminal Procedure Code will not be attracted. In my opinion if the complaint is not covered by any of the provisions of Sec. 195, Criminal Procedure Code, then it cannot be said to be a complaint filed either by a Court or by a- public servant in the dis­charge of his official duty and thus the proviso to Sec. 200, Criminal Procedure Code will not be attracted. If the Magistrate files a complaint otherwise than what is contemplated under Sec. 195, Criminal Procedure Code, then before the processes can be issued, the complainant has to be examined under Sec. 200, Criminal Procedure Code and in the present case no such proceedings were taken and the Magistrate was never examined. (6) As regards the contention of the other side that it may be treated to be cognizance under Sec. 190 (1) (c), there are two-fold answers to this contention. Firstly cognizance in this case was not taken under Sec. 190 (l)(c) by the Magistrate. The cognisence was taken under sec­tion 190 (1) (a) inasmuch as he proceeded on the com­plaint filed by the Magistrate. Secondly there was non-compliance with Sec. 191, Criminal Procedure Code. It is said that the Magistrate was competent to take action under Sec. 191, Criminal Procedure Code before the evi­dence is recorded and at this stage it cannot be said that he has not complied with the provisions of Sec. 191. As I have indicated, absence of any action by the Magistrate under Sec. 191 also indicates that in fact the Magistrate did not take cognisance under Sec. 190 (1) (c) but under Sec. 190 (1) (a), Criminal Procedure Code and thus in my opinion the issue of processes by the Magistrate asking the petitioners to reply to the charges under Sees. 188. 447 and 426, Indian Penal Code was not valid and the order issuing processes is quashed. (7) The revision is, therefore, allowed and the sum­monses issued to the petitioners are quashed. Revision allowed.