JUDGMENT : B.K. Behera, J. - A Circle Inspector of Police, the Petitioner challenges the order dated January 21, 1980 passed by Mr. N.B.K. Murty, then the Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate at Angul, in G.R. Case No. 398 of 1979 taking cognisance of an offence punishable u/s 175 of the Indian Penal Code against the Petitioner for violation of the order passed by him on November 19, 1979 directing the Petitioner, who had taken over investigation of the case, to produce some seized documents. 2. Appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, Mr. Palit has contended that although the Petitioner had been directed to show cause by January 28, 1980 as to why action should not be taken against him for disobeying the order of the court for production of the documents which had not been communicated to him until January 24, 1980, the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order on January 21, 1980 taking cognisance of the offence for violation of the court's order without making a complaint in writing as provided in Section 195(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code'), The learned Additional Standing Counsel has submitted that the court should have made a complaint after the expiry of the time given to the Petitioner to show cause. 3. On December 19, 1979, an order was passed directing the Petitioner to show cause on or before January 18, 1980, as to why action should not be taken against him for violation of the order passed by the court directing him to produce the documents seized in connection with the case, On January 18, 1980, it was noted in the order sheet that the previous order had not been communicated and therefore, a direction was given to send a copy of that order to the Petitioner to show cause by January 28, 1980. It is important to note that as endorsed in the order sheet, extracts of the orders passed by the learned Magistrate on December 19, 1979 and January 18, 1980 were sent to the Petitioner on January 24, 1980. It is important to note that as endorsed in the order sheet, extracts of the orders passed by the learned Magistrate on December 19, 1979 and January 18, 1980 were sent to the Petitioner on January 24, 1980. The Petitioner had been asked to show cause by January 28, 1980, but even before this order was communicated to the Petitioner, the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order without affording an opportunity to the Petitioner of being heard and not in keeping with his own previous order directing the Petitioner to show cause by January 28, 1980. Cognisance was taken of an offence punishable u/s 175 of the Indian Penal Code and a further direction was given to summon the Petitioner to stand his trial for that offence. 4. The learned Magistrate could not legally take cognisance of an offence punishable u/s 175 of the Indian Penal Code in the manner he did. Section 195(1)(a) of the Code provides that no court shall take cognisance of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code except on the complaint in writing of that court, or of some other court to which that court is subordinate. It would, therefore, have been legal and proper on the part of tile learned Magistrate to make a complaint in writing and send it on to the Chief Judicial Magistrate of the district for taking cognisance of the offence. 5. Section 195(1)(a) of the Code deals with the prosecution for contempt of lawful authority and provides inter alia that prosecution for certain offences against justice shall not be taken cognisance of except on the complaint in writing of a court before which the offence is committed or of some other court to which that court is subordinate. The words "no court shall take cognisance" show that there is an absolute bar against the court taking seisin of the case except in the manner provided by the section. See Daulat Ram Vs. State of Punjab. As has been held by the Supreme Court in Kamalapati Trivedi v. The State of West Bengal, proceedings taken against an accused person in contravention of the bar contained in Section 195(1)(b) of the Code without any complaint in writing of the court or of a superior court are liable to be quashed. See Daulat Ram Vs. State of Punjab. As has been held by the Supreme Court in Kamalapati Trivedi v. The State of West Bengal, proceedings taken against an accused person in contravention of the bar contained in Section 195(1)(b) of the Code without any complaint in writing of the court or of a superior court are liable to be quashed. In the instant case, cognisance has been taken by the learned Magistrate not in accordance with, but in violation of law The impugned order has clearly brought about a situation which is an abuse of the process of the court and for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, interference by this Court in exercise of its power u/s 482 of the Code is absolutely necessary as there is a legal bar against the institution an continuance of the criminal proceedings against the Petitioner. 6. I would allow the revision, set aside the impugned order taking cognisance against the Petitioner and quash the criminal proceedings against him. Final Result : Allowed