K. P. MOHAPATRA, J, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners have been accused of an offence under section 188 of tile Indian Penal Code (referred to as I. P. C.) in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Salipur in 2 (C) C. C. No. 297 of 1982. They have made this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (referred to as the Code) for quashing the order of cognizance dated 26. 8. 1982. ( 2 ) THE facts material for the purpose of disposing of the petition are narrated in brief. At the instance of one Hemanta Kumar Panda, thet learned Executive Magistrate, Cuttack, initiated Criminal Misc. Case No. 154 of 1982 under section 144 of the Code against petitioners 1 and 2 and passed the preliminary order on 4. 5. 1982 to the following effect: I consider this as a case of emergency and do hereby order under section 144 (2) Criminal Procedure Code restraining the 2nd party members from making construction and coming upon the disputed land for a period of 60 days from the date of signing of this order. The 2nd party members are directed to appear in my court on 15. 5. 82 and show cause as to why this order shall not be made absolute. The preliminay order was promulgated on petitioners 1 and 2 who were the members of the second party in the proceeding under section 144 of the Code on 7. 5. 1982. After considering the cause shown by them the learned Executive Magistrate made the; preliminary order absolute on 3. 6. 1982. ( 3 ) ON 24. 8. 82, the learned Executive Magistrate filed a complaint petition in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Cuttack against the petitioners and. the same was registered as 2 (C) C. C. No. 297. of 1982. It was alleged in the complaint petition that despite the prohibitory order under section 144 (2) of the Code and in violation thereof, the petitioners on 14. 7. 1982 criminally trespassed on the land in. dispute in the proceeding and made illegal constructions. Therefore, he prayed that, the petitioners having committed an offence under section 188 Indian Penal Code should be punished thereunder. On receipt of the complaint petition, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the alleged offence under section 188 Indian Penal Code on 26. 8. dispute in the proceeding and made illegal constructions. Therefore, he prayed that, the petitioners having committed an offence under section 188 Indian Penal Code should be punished thereunder. On receipt of the complaint petition, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the alleged offence under section 188 Indian Penal Code on 26. 8. 1982 and in due course transferred the case for trial to the court of the judicial Magistrate, Sal i pu r, ( 4 ) MR. A. K. Baral, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners strenuously urged that the petitioners did not violate the prohibitory order in any manner within 60 days of the order under section 144 (2) of the Code and therefore they did not commit the alleged offence under section 188 Indian Penal Code. If at all they trespassed into the disputed land and made illegal construction on the alleged date, they were liable for any other offence such as section 447 I. P. C. Therefore, the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 26. 8. 1982 taking cognizance of the offence under section 188 Indian Penal Code and the proceeding subsequent there to in 2 (c) C. C. No. 297 of 1982 should be quashed in exercise of the inherent powers of this Court under section 482 of the Code. Mr. D. P Sahoo, learned Standing Counsel very fairly conceded that the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioners being not in accordance with law, is liable to be quashed. ( 5 ) ACCORDING to sub-section- (4), no order under Section 144 of the Code shall remain in force for more than two months from the date of making thereof. The learned Executive Magistrate passed the preliminary order under Section 144 (2) of the Code on 4. 5. 1982 and made the order absolute on 3. 6. 1982. The effect of the order expired on 4. 7. 982. Even if it is assumed that the prohibitory order became effective from the date of promulgation thereof on 7. 5. 1982 the effect there of expired on 7. 7. 1987. This view is supported not only by a plain construction of sub-section, (4) of Section 144 of the Code, but also by two decisions of the Patna High Court reported in Puran Singh v. Mr. Ramjhari Koer1 and Ram Narain Sah and another v. Parameshar Sah and others2. 5. 1982 the effect there of expired on 7. 7. 1987. This view is supported not only by a plain construction of sub-section, (4) of Section 144 of the Code, but also by two decisions of the Patna High Court reported in Puran Singh v. Mr. Ramjhari Koer1 and Ram Narain Sah and another v. Parameshar Sah and others2. In the case of Puran Singh, Varma, held that the period of 60 days begins to run from the date on which the notices are issued. In the case of Ram Narain Sah, reliance was placed on the case of Puran Singh and it was held by Davle, J. that the 60/ days period under Section 144 runs from the date on which the notices are issued. It appears from the record of Criminal Misc. Case No. 54 of 1982 of the court of the learned Executive Magistrate, Cuttack that the prohibitory order as issued on 4- 5-1982 for the purpose of promulgation. It is, therefore, immensely clear that the prohibitory order under, section 144 (2) of the Code passed and issued on 4-5-1982 further promulgated on 7-5- 1982 came to an end after expiry of 60 days on 4-7-1982 or at the latest on 7-7-1982. This being the position, the petitioners were not under any prohibition or restraint on 14-7-82 when the alleged offence according to the complaint petition was committed. Therefore, the alleged offence under section 188 Indian Penal Code could not have been committed by the petitioners and the order of taking cognizance of the offence dated 26-8-1982 and the subsequent proceeding of thet case being illegal are liable to be quashed. ( 6 ) A peculiar feature which came to my notice is that petitioner No. 3, wife of petitioner No. 1, was not a party to the proceeding under section 144 of the Code. No prohibitory order was passed nor promulgated on her. Yet, she was made an accused in the complaint petition and surprisingly, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuttack took cognizance of the offence against her along with petitioners 1 and 2. It is apparent that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuttack did not apply his mind and did not even peruse the facts stated in the complaint petition. Yet, she was made an accused in the complaint petition and surprisingly, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuttack took cognizance of the offence against her along with petitioners 1 and 2. It is apparent that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuttack did not apply his mind and did not even peruse the facts stated in the complaint petition. Had he done so, he would not have passed a mechanical order by taking cognizance of an offence under section 188 Indian Penal Code against petitioners and 2, as well as, petitioner No. 3. It is on account of his non-application of mind that the petitioners have sufferred and their liberty jeopardised. It is essential and the interest of justice demands that the Judicial Magistrates must apply their mind at the time of taking cognizance of offences and scrupulously avoid taking cognizance of offences in a mechanical manner simply because complaint petitions are filed by public officers, for, no citizen should suffer in any manner and his liberty end angered by such mechanical action. ( 7 ) LAW is well settled that the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction does not ordinarily interfere with a criminal proceeding at an interlocutory stage unless there are exceptional circumstances. Inherent jurisdiction can be exercised to quash a criminal proceeding in an appropriate case either to prevent the abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. If there is no prima facie case and, when the facts alleged in the complaint petition, even though, accepted as correct in their face value do not make out an offence with which the accused is charged inherent powers under section 482 of the Code can be exercised and the criminal proceeding quashed. The above view is supported by authorities such as R. K. Kapur v. State of Punjab, Hareram Satpathy v. Tikaram Agarwala and others, Judhistir Das v. Patitapaban Hota and another, State of Orissa v. Mr. Abdual Karim, Mathew Dmalt and another v. State of Orissa, to cite a few. In my considered opinion, the facts alleged in the complaint petition in 2 (c) C. C. No. 297 of 1982, if accepted as correct do not at all reveal a prima facie case against the petitioners. ( 8 ) IN the result, the Criminal Misc. Case is allowed. In my considered opinion, the facts alleged in the complaint petition in 2 (c) C. C. No. 297 of 1982, if accepted as correct do not at all reveal a prima facie case against the petitioners. ( 8 ) IN the result, the Criminal Misc. Case is allowed. The order of cognizance dated 26-8-1982 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuttack and the subsequent orders passed in .