JUDGMENT 1. This Rule is for setting aside an order dated 31.10.77 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Purulia and also for quashing of a proceeding under S.188 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purulia. 2. It appears that in 1975 there was a proceeding under S. 145 of Criminal Procedure. On 1.11.76 the learned Executive Magistrate passed an order of attachment and appointed the local J.L.R.O. as Receiver until competent court has determined the rights of the parties thereto with regard to the person entitled to the possessions thereof. Evidently, such an order was made by the learned Executive Magistrate under S.146 of the Code. The petitioners were parties in that proceeding. After the aforesaid order the petitioners brought a suit being title suit No. 36 of 1977 in the Court of the local Munsif who on 3.2.77 passed an order of interim injunction in favour of the petitioner. It is alleged that on 4.2.77 at about 13-30 hours the petitioners had caught fish from the subject matter in dispute namely a tank called Purnia Bundh. The J.L.R.O., as it appears, is a party defendant in the suit. He filed a complaint under S. 379 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners on the allegation that they had committed theft of fish from Purnia Bundh on 4.2.77. That proceeding had been quashed by this Court. The learned Executive Magistrate on his attention being drawn, ordered that a complaint under S.188 of the Indian Penal Code be filed against the petitioners. This order was made on 31.10.77 and pursuant to this order a complaint was duly filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purulia who, as it appears, has issued process against the petitioners. 3. It is now the contention of the petitioner that in view of the order of interim injunction in their favour passed by the Civil Court and also in view of the terms of S.188 of the Indian Penal Code, the learned Executive Magistrate acted illegally in lodging a complaint against the petitioners under S.188 of the Indian Penal Code and that as such the proceeding pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate should be quashed. 4. Having heard the learned Advocates of the respective parties and on a consideration of the materials on record I find much force in the aforesaid contention of the petitioners. 4. Having heard the learned Advocates of the respective parties and on a consideration of the materials on record I find much force in the aforesaid contention of the petitioners. We have already seen that the petitioners obtained an order of interim injunction in their favour in a Civil Suit in which the J.L.R.O. who is a Receiver, is one of the party defendants and that the proceeding under S. 379 of the Indian Penal Code against them has been quashed by this Court. 5. Section 138 of the Indian Penal Code relates to disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant. In terms of the aforesaid section 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 the certain property in his possession or under his management, disobeys such direction, he commits an offence under S.188 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. In the present case the learned Executive Magistrate only passed an order of attachment and appointed a Receiver in respect thereof under S.146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Such an order of attachment and appointment of a Receiver does not come within the category of an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order and directing a person or persons to abstain from a certain act or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management. Therefore, merely because the petitioners had caught fish in the tank which was under an order of attachment and was in the case of the Receiver, even if true, it cannot prima facie be construed as disobedience of an order promulgated by the learned Executive Magistrate so as to bring them within the mischief S.188 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. I am, therefore, of the view that the learned Magistrate exceeded his jurisdiction in ordering for lodging a complaint under S. 188 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused petitioners and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate also acted illegally in entertaining such a complaint. 8. In the result, the Rule is made absolute. The impugned order dated 31.10.77 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate is set aside and the proceeding before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is hereby quashed. Rule made absolute.