By this application under section 482 CrPC the petitioner prays for quashing the FIR No.55 (11)/90 of Nungba PS which was registered under section 188/34 IPC. 2. The facts in short are as follows : The SDO, Nungba, by his order dated 20.3.86 appointed the complainant (Sohhem Gonjai) as Khullakpa of Taosang Village in Tamenglong District. The complainant filed a complaint dated 25.10.90 in the Court of CJM, Tamenglong, alleging that the accused, namely, (1) Shri G. Pantigongpou and (2) Shri G. Ramjanlung disobeyed the order by calling a meeting of the villagers on 8.9.90. The accused No.l also claimed to b: the Khullakpa. It was further alleged that the accused persons also threatend the complainant when he served notice to them asking to appear and to give show cause statement of the said notice which was published by them on 12.9.90. The CJM forwarded this complaint to Tamenglong PS which then registered Case No. FIR 13 (12)90 under section 188/34. Subseque­ntly, the case was transferred from that PS to Nungba PS, as the place of occurrence falls under the jurisdiction of this PS. Nungha PS then registered it as FIRNo.55(ll)/90. 3. The contention of Mr. A. Nilamani Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner is that section 188 IPC is controlled by section 190 IPC which in turn is controlled by section 195 CrPC and therefore even if the police submit a report on finding materials, the Magistrate to whom the complaint was filed would not be able to take cognizance and therefore this would mean only wasting of time of the IO and harassment to the petitioners who are accused in the case. Against this Mr. Shyam Kishore, learned PP has contended that in the amended CrPG the section has become cognizable and therefore the police can investigate the case. He also stated there is also an allegation of threat which would come under section 506 IPC. He submitted that the proceedings before the police are not liable to be quashed. Mr. Nilamani has referred to page 1054 of Mitra's CrPC 16th Edn, wherein it is said : "(c) Absence of complaint-private individuals are not to be allowed to be evade the restrictive provisions of section 195 CrPC and to bring prosecutions which should properly be brought by the Courts themselves." 4. Mr. Nilamani has referred to page 1054 of Mitra's CrPC 16th Edn, wherein it is said : "(c) Absence of complaint-private individuals are not to be allowed to be evade the restrictive provisions of section 195 CrPC and to bring prosecutions which should properly be brought by the Courts themselves." 4. In the absence of the complaint required by section 195, the Magistrate acts without jurisdiction in summoning the accused and the subsequent proceedings are, therefore, void. 5. Where the Court has acted without jurisdiction with regard to a part of the trial (i.e. in respect of one of several offences), the whole proceedings are vitiated. 6. At page 1989 of Sohoni's CrPC it is said : "The opening words of section 100(1) "Subject to the provisions of this Chapter" indicate that this section is to be read subject to the other sections of the Chapter and is controlled by section 195." 7. At page 2085 of the same book it said : "No Court shall take cogniza­nce of any offence under section 172 to 188 Penal Code except on complaint in writing of the public servant concerned. As a general rule any person having knowledge of the commission of an offence may set the law in motion by a complaint, even though he is not personally interested or affected by the offence. But there are exception to this general rule of which examples are sections 195 to 196, Because of section 195 (1) (a) no Court can take cogniz­ance of any offence mentioned therein unless a complaint as required is filed. 8. It was held by Supreme Court in Daulat Ram vs. State of Punjab, 1962(2) Crl LJ 286 : AIR 1962 SC 1206 that : 'Where a person reports to a Tehsildar to take action of averment of certain facts, believing that the Tehsildar would take some action upon it, and the facts alleged in the report are found to be false it is incumbent, if the prosecution is to be launched, that the complaint in writing should be made by the Tehsildar as the public servant concerned under section 18?, and not leave it to the police to put a charge sheet. The complaint made be in writing by the public servant concerned. The trial under section 182 without the Tehsildar's complaint in writing is therefore without jurisdic­tion ab initio." 9. The complaint made be in writing by the public servant concerned. The trial under section 182 without the Tehsildar's complaint in writing is therefore without jurisdic­tion ab initio." 9. In Govind Mehta vs. State of Bihar, 1971 Crl LJ 1266 : AIR 1971 SC 1708 also the Supreme Court held this non compliance with section 195 CrPC which imposes a limitation of nower on Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence mentioned in section deprives of jurisdiction to take cognizance of those offences. In view of these decisions and the notes of Mitra and Sohoni which I have reproduced above, it is clear that even if the IO in the instant case finds same materials under section 188 and submit report, the Magistrate to whom the complaint is made would not have the jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case and therefore the investigation, if carried out would be of no effect. The learned PP then argued that in the complaint there is also an allegation for threatening which would come under section 506; and so it is competent to the IO to investigate this part of the allegation. I find that there is no clear statement as to in what way the accused have threatened him. So, unless the complainant can improve the case of threatening, no case is made out also under section 506. In view of this legal position, the remedy left to the complainant is to approach the officer or the authority concerned and request him to file a complaint under section 195 CrPC. It may be noted that the case was registered in 1990 and the learned PP cannot say at what stage the investigation is now lying. On the facts and circumstances of the case which I have stated above, I am of the view that no useful purpose would be served by allowing the investigation to go on. 10. In the result, the petition is allowed and the proceedings are quashed. It would, however, be open to the complainant to move the authority whose order the accused have violated to file the complaint. A copy of this order should be sent to the Superintendent of Police under which Nungba PS is situated.