JUDGMENT L. P. N. Shahdeo, J.- This is an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the criminal prosecution and the order of taking cognizance under section 182 of the Penal Code dated 5.7.1983 passed by the additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, against the petitioners in the following circumstances. 2. It appears that petitioner no. 1, Naresh Sahay had submitted a report on 10.6.1983 to the officer-in-charge, Shri S.C. Pathak of Hindpiri police station stating that his neighbour, Prafulla Kumar Chakravorty was starting some construction work covering the land disputed in the eyes of law and, therefore, he had requested the officer-in-charge to stop their construction. On receipt of his complaint, a non F.I.R. case no. 7/83 of Hindpiri Police station was instituted. The officer-in-charge of Hindpiri police station endorsed this application of petitioner no. 1 for enquiry and report, on the same day. The complaint petition of petitioner no. 1 is Annexure-2. 3. It appears that, thereafter, Mr. C.D. Roy, the S.I. made enquiry on 10.6.1983 and found that the report given by petitioner no. 1 was false. No construction was found on the disputed plot no. 2231 and, therefore, it is said that the complaint was filed only to harass the said Prafulla Kumar Chakravorty and also the complainant, Mr. C.D. Roy. On the basis of that complaint, cognizance was taken which is being assailed of in this application. 4. Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that this matter can be disposed of on a technical point as the order of taking cognizance is ab initio bad and without jurisdiction as it has not been done in accordance with law as laid down under section 195 (1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. The point for consideration is whether in this case, the complaint petition had been filed by a competent person. Section 195 (1)(a) Cr. P.C. lays down that: "No court shall take cognizance 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 concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate". 6. Section 195 (1)(a) Cr. P.C. lays down that: "No court shall take cognizance 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 concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate". 6. Therefore, in this case, it has to be seen whether the complaint petition has been filed by the competent public servant or by a public servant to whom he was subordinate at the relevant time. 7. It is the admitted position in this case that petitioner no. 1 had filed the complaint to the then officer-in-charge of Hindpiri police station, Mr. S. C. Pathak but, it appears that in this case, the complaint has been filed by Mr. C. D. Roy who was the S. I. attached to that Hindpiri police station and the officer- in-charge of that police station endorsed the same to him for investigation. 8. The complainant had made a complaint, admittedly, to the officer-in-charge and he wanted that the officer-in-charge should take some action on that allegation levelled against the accused of that case. Therefore, in this case the complaint could have been filed by the officer-in-charge and not by any other person or by the S.I. Mr. C.D. Roy because Mr. C.D. Roy was incompetent to file a complaint as it goe3 against the mandate of the provision of section 195 (1)(a) Cr. P.C. which dearly Jays down that the complaint must be filed by that "person concerned" which means before whom the complaint was filed or by an officer to whom that public servant was subordinate at that time. 9. In this case, admittedly the concerned person i.e. the officer-in-charge of Hindpiri police s1ation has not filed the complaint. Admittedly the police officer under whom the officer-in-charge was working as subordinate, has not filed any complaint. Therefore, the complaint filed by Mr. CD. Roy must be held to be without jurisdiction and bad in law, ab initio. 10. To elucidate this point learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a ruling reported in A.I.R. 1902 Supreme Court 1206 (Daulat Ram v. State of Punjab) in which it was held that there is absolute bar against the court taking cognizance of the offence under section 182 of the I.P.C. except in the manner provided by section 195 Cr. To elucidate this point learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a ruling reported in A.I.R. 1902 Supreme Court 1206 (Daulat Ram v. State of Punjab) in which it was held that there is absolute bar against the court taking cognizance of the offence under section 182 of the I.P.C. except in the manner provided by section 195 Cr. P.C. It says that the offence under section 182 is complete when a person moves the public servant for action. In this case petitioner no. 1 had moved the officer-in charge for action. In that case a report was submitted to the Tehsildar to take action but the Tehsildar, instead of taking action, criminal prosecution was launched and charge-sheet was submitted. It was held that the complaint must be made in writing by the "public servant concerned." Therefore, the trial under section 182 without the Tehsildar's complaint in writing, was held to be without jurisdiction and the appeal was allowed and criminal prosecution of the appellant of that case was set aside. 11. Similar is the case here. The offence was complete when petitioner no. 1 had made the complaint to the officer-in-charge and that officer-in-charge had not filed any Complaint. The complaint was filed by Mr. C.D. Roy, the another S.I. to whom no complaint was made, must be held to be bad in law and without jurisdiction. On this legal point this application must succeed. 12. In the result, this application is allowed. The criminal prosecution of the petitioners and the order of taking cognizance against them are quashed.