Judgment MILAP CHANDRA JAM, J. ( 1 ) THIS contempt petition has been filed under Section - 12, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter to be called the Act) by Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Munsif cum Judicial magistrate, Boli (Sawaimadhopur) against three police constables, one head con: stable and S. H. O. of the Police Station, Boli, Circle Officer and Superintendent of Police, Sawaimadhopur. ( 2 ) THE petitioners case, in short, is that Police constables Hansraj Singh, am Prakash Mishra and Chiman Lal profusely abused him, threatened him with dire consequences and attempted to assault him while he was discharging judicial functions in his court on June 4, 1993. On June 5, 1993, the head constable Vijay Singh came to his residence and threatened him If any action was taken against the police constables and similarly the Circle Officer Balwant Singh asked him at the residence of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sawaimadhopur not to take any action against the said police constables. On June 8, 1993, he also came to his residence and threatened him with dire consequences. The said constables, head constable, S. H. O. and Circle Officer are continuously threatening him with dire consequences if any action was taken by him against them. The Superintendent of Police Mohan Singh Bhati is protecting them. Action under Section 228, I. P. C. was not taken against the said police constables as it was not then possible. ( 3 ) THIS contempt petition was received through the District and Sessions Judge, Sawaimadhopur. By his order dated July 7, 1993, the Hontble Chief Justice directed that the contempt petition be listed before this Bench. ( 4 ) COGNIZANCE of the contempt was taken against the-police constables Hansraj Singh, am Prakash Mishra and Chimanlal, bailable warrants for Rs. 10,000/- each were issued against them and notices were issued to Mohan Singh Bhati Superintendent of Police, Balwant Singh Circle Officer and Vijay Singh Head constable. The contemners appeared before this Court. Replies have been filed by Mohan Singh Bhati Superintendent of Police, Balwant Singh Circle Officer and Vijay Singh head Constable. 10,000/- each were issued against them and notices were issued to Mohan Singh Bhati Superintendent of Police, Balwant Singh Circle Officer and Vijay Singh Head constable. The contemners appeared before this Court. Replies have been filed by Mohan Singh Bhati Superintendent of Police, Balwant Singh Circle Officer and Vijay Singh head Constable. ( 5 ) ON November 10, 1993, an application was filed raising preliminary objection that the present contempt petition is expressly barred under proviso to Section 10 of the Act as Raj Kumar Verma, Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Boli has filed a complaint under Sections 186, 187,188, 189,221, 222, 228: 352, 357, 503, 323, 332 read with Sections 511, 120b and 109, I. P. C. against the non-petitioners in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sawaimadhopur. Two police constables have also filed. complaints against him (Raj Kumar Verma ). Certified copies of the three complaints have been filed in support of the preliminary objection. ( 6 ) IT has been contended by the learned counsel for the contemners that the contempt petition is barred under the proviso to Section 10 of the Act as complaint under Sections 186, 187, 188,189, 221, 222, 228, 352, 503, 323, 332 read with Sections 511, 120b and 109, I. P. C. has already been filed by Raj Kumar Verma Munsif and cum Judicial Magistrate, Boli against the said police constables, head constable and S. H. O. He placed reliance upon Kashmira Singh v. State of M. P. and D. C. Hajela District Judge, Alwar v. K. N. Bhargava Advocate and others. ( 7 ) IN reply, the learned Additional Advocate General contended that the preliminary objection has not been taken in their replies by the contemners. ( 8 ) PROVISO to Section 10 of the Act runs as under: provided that no High Court shall take cognizance of a contempt alleged to have been committed in respect of a court subordinate to it where such contempt is an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code. A comparative study of the contempt petition and the complaint filed by Raj Kumar Verma Munsifcum-Judicial Magistrate, Boli shows that both contain almost similar averments. A comparative study of the contempt petition and the complaint filed by Raj Kumar Verma Munsifcum-Judicial Magistrate, Boli shows that both contain almost similar averments. The complaint has been filed in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sawaimadhopur under Sections 186, 187, 188, 189, 221, 222, 228, 352, 357, 503,323,332 read with Sections 511, 120b and 109, I. P. C. The substance of the charge against the contemners is that they were guilty of criminal contempt by profusely abusing and threatening him and attempting to bring into contempt the authority of the court, besides interfering with or obstructing the proceedings of the court. These acts clearly fall within the purview of Sections 186, 187, 188, 228 and 353, I. P. C. We have no doubt in our mind that the matter is squarely covered by above quoted proviso. It clearly provides that High Court shall not take cognizance of a contempt alleged to have been committed in respect of a court subordinate the it where such contempt is an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code. The contempt petition is, therefore, not maintainable. ( 9 ) ACCORDINGLY, the contempt petition filed by Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Munsif-cum-Judicial magistrate, Boli under Section 12 of the Act against the aforesaid contemners is dismissed. Contempt proceedings taken against the non-petitioners NO. 1 to 7 are dropped and the notices issued to them are discharged. The bail bonds furnished by the contemners Hansraj Singh, am prakash Mishra and Chiman Lal are cancelled. Petition dismissed.