Judgment N. K. JAM, J. ( 1 ) BY this petition, the petitioner seeks to quash the order of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kushalgarh dated 26. 4. 1983 whereby he has taken cognizance against the petitioner u/s. 228 and 188, I. P. C. ( 2 ) MR. Sunil Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence u/s. 188 and 228, I. P. C. ( 3 ) MR. V. S. Choudhary, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition and submitted that the petitioners act of making endorsement on standing warrant certainly comes within the purview of Sec. 228 and 188, I. P. C. ( 4 ) I have heard Mr. Sunil Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V. S. Choudhary, learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record. ( 5 ) IN a case arising out of F. I. R. No. 12/79 12 persons were challaned on 16. 3. 1979, 11 persons have been acquitted for the offence u/ss. 147, 148, 149,452 and 323, LP. C. on 30. 10. 1982, but the accused could not be tried and a standing warrant was pending. The petitioner who was Station House Officer at the Police Station, Kushalgarh, went to village of Arhang to arrest him twice but found that he was not available in village for the last three years and returned the standing warrant without effecting service with a note at the back that it would be difficult to prove the guilt only on one accused when other 11 persons have already been acquitted and standing warrant be discharged. On this the learned Magistrate issued a show cause notice and in compliance the petitioner submitted reply which was not considered. The petitioner in his statement which was recorded on 8. 4. 1983 before the learned Magistrate has stated that this act was done by him due to innocence and under mistaken belief. It is pertinent to note that three essential ingredients for the offence u/s. 228 are: (a) intention (b) insult (c) the public servant insulted or interrupted must have been sitting in any stage of a judicial proceeding. In view of the reply of the petitioner and his statement that due to innocence and under mistaken belief, he has mentioned that warrant may be discharged, so, it could not be said that the petitioner has any intention to insult. In view of the reply of the petitioner and his statement that due to innocence and under mistaken belief, he has mentioned that warrant may be discharged, so, it could not be said that the petitioner has any intention to insult. ( 6 ) UNDER these circumstances, no case is made out and in my opinion if the proceedings are allowed to continue it will amounts to abuse of the process of the court and to secure ends of justice, I think it proper to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioner in criminal case No. 129/83 in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Kushalgarh State v. Bharal singh. ( 7 ) THE result, this petition is allowed and the pending proceedings against the petitioner in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Kushalgarh in case No. 129/83 are ,quashed. Petition allowed.