Judgment Lalit Mohan Sharma, J. 1. -this is an application under section 482 of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code) for quashing the order dated 26-6-1974 passed by the court below taking cognizance under section 427 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner on a complaint filed by the sole opposite party. 2. It is stated that on 11-6-74 a proceeding under section 144 of the Code was drawn up by the Subdivisional Magistrate, Jamtara, and he passed prohibitory orders restraining the parties from obstructing in fixing of the roof over a house standing on plot no 350, fully described in the order. On 26-6-74 the opposite party filed a complaint petition a copy whereof is Annexure 1 to the application alleging that on 16-6-74 the petitioners committed mischief with the roof of the house. On examining the complainant on solemn affirmation the court below has taken cognizance under section 427 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Mr. Verma appearing for the petitioners has contended that in view of the provisions of section 195 (1) (a) (i) of the Code, which are quoted below, the court below had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of an offence on the basis of a complaint petition directly filed by the complainant- "195 (1) No court shall take cognizance- (a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code. Except on the complaint in writing of the public servant coneerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. " He has relied upon a decision in Mahendra Prasad Singh V/s. State of Bihar (A. I. R.1970 Patna 202 ). 4 On examination of language of the relevant portion of section 195 of the code quoted above, it will be manifest that the offences in respect of which the court has been prohibited to take cognizance on the basis of a complaint by the complainant himself are those under sections 172 to 188 and the bar does not apply to any other offence. Since by the impugned order cognizance has been taken under section 427 of the Indian Penal Code, there does not appear to be any application of section 195 of the Code to the case. Since by the impugned order cognizance has been taken under section 427 of the Indian Penal Code, there does not appear to be any application of section 195 of the Code to the case. The decision in Mahendra prasad Singhs case (supra) has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In that case prohibitory order had been passed under Sec.144 of the code asking the complainant not to go upon the land in dispute and in that view it was held that he must be taken to be out of possession for the period for which the prohibitory order remained in force. As a result of this finding it was further held that the charge of the theft could not be maintained. In substance, this Court had quashed the proceeding in which cognizance had been taken under section 379 on a consideration of the merits of the case. The decision was not founded upon the bar of section 195 (1) (a) (i) of the Code and is, therefore, not helpful to the petitioner. If on a perusal of the complaint petition it would have appeared that no offence under section 417 of the Penal Code has been made out in the case before me, the court below would have dismissed the complaint petition as not disclosing any offence. That is, however, not the petition. I do not therefore, find any merit in the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners I would, however, like to clarify that the petitioners cannot be tried and convicted under section 188 of the Indian Penal Code on the ground of violation of the prohibitory order passed under section 144 of the Code, as that would be barred by section 195. 5. The application is, accordingly, dismissed. Application dismissed.