Honble KHAN, J.–By this petition u/S. 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner-accused challenged the order dated 4.12.91 whereby the learned Magistrate dismissed their application u/S. 258 Cr.P.C. seeking cancellation of the order of taking cognizance of the offences u/S. 147, 341, 352 and 447 IPC against them and some others. (2). Relevant facts are these : Agricultural land of Khasra No. 56 admeasuring 21 Bighas 3 Biswas situate at village Kakarawada, Police Station Khatauli, Distt. Kota is the Muafi land of the temple of Sh. Kunj Behari Ji. It appear that the parties to the present litigation were asserting their rights not only to possess the aforesaid land but also to offer ``Seva-Puja to the deity in the temple. Their dispute took them to the Revenue Courtat Kota where Panthoo Ram (co- accused), purporting to act as Vyavasthapak of the temple filed a Revenue suit u/S. 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act on 9.12.1991 against Mukat Behari complainant and others. In their turn Mukat Behari & Shambhu Dayal complainants appear to have filed suit No. 131 of 1991 against Panthu Lal and another in the court of Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate Itawa, Kota for declaration and injunction in respect to the same property. An ad-interim injunction was also granted in their favour on 10.6.91 but the same was vacated on 2.6.92 afterhearing the parties. Both the suits are reported to be still pending before the respective courts. (3). It is in the above back ground that Mukat Behari and Shambhu Dayal Complainants filed a joint complaint in the court of the learned Magistrate alleging therein that on 4.8.91 at about 12.00 at noon the petitioners and other accused en-tered upon the suit land, ploughed the land with tractor and forcibly sowed crop therein and on being protested against by the complainants they tried to assault them and restrained them to proceed in the direction of the fields in question. This complaint was sent to police u/S. 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation. After investigation the police submitted a chargesheet whereupon the learned Magistrate took cogni-zance of offences u/Ss. 147, 341, 352 and 447 IPC and summoned the petitioners and others as accused in the case. After putting in appearance in the court the petitioner moved an application u/S. 258 Cr.P.C. for cancellation of the proceedings against them. But, as stated above, the learned Magistrate, by his impugned order, rejected their such application. (4). 147, 341, 352 and 447 IPC and summoned the petitioners and others as accused in the case. After putting in appearance in the court the petitioner moved an application u/S. 258 Cr.P.C. for cancellation of the proceedings against them. But, as stated above, the learned Magistrate, by his impugned order, rejected their such application. (4). Relying on the case of Ram Khiladi & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (1), wherein pendency of similar proceedings, instituted on successive complaints were quashed in the wake of pendency of civil litigation between the parties over the same subject matter, it was urged that since an order of injunction had been promulgated by the civil court and such order was very much in force on the dateof commission of the alleged offences in this case and the complained act of the petitioners attracted the provisions of Section 188 IPC a complaint for those offences could have been filed by the court concerned only as per Sec. 195 Cr.P.C. The learned Public Prosecutor, however, supported the impugned order. I find force in the argument advanced. (5). Section 188 IPC reads as under:- ``Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant–Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain proper- ty in his possession or under his management, disobeys such direction, shall, if such disobedience cause or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any persons lawfully employed, be punished with simple imprison- ment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both: and if such disobedience causes or tends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. (6). A bare reading of Sec. 188 IPC tells that the disobedience of an order promulgated by court (besides attracting other provisions like Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C.) would make the act of disobedience of the order an offence, punishable. (6). A bare reading of Sec. 188 IPC tells that the disobedience of an order promulgated by court (besides attracting other provisions like Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C.) would make the act of disobedience of the order an offence, punishable. In the instant case the injunction order made and promulgated on 10.6.91 in civil Suit No. 131 of 1991 was very much in force when the offences were alleged to have been committed. The unlawful assembly was allegedly formed with the common object of committing trespass by entering into the disputed land with a view to cultivate it and the actual offence u/S. 447 IPC was then allegedly committed. Then the complaint and his men were allegedly restrained in proceeding in the direction of the field by threat of use of criminal force. All these offences were, therefore, allegedly committed in the same series of transaction. All the offences were therefore related or linked with or originated from the offence of criminal trespasspunishable u/S. 447 IPC. Trespass by the petitioner over the field had been prohibited by the order of the civil court made and promulgated on 10.6.91. That order was therefore, violated or disobeyed. An offence punishable u/S. 188 IPC was thus allegedly committed. Sec. 195(1)(a)(i), (ii) & (iii) Cr.P.C. reads as under: ``Sec. 195.–Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence : (1) No Court shall take cognizance– (a)(i) of any offence punishable under Section 172 to 188 (both inclu- sive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or (ii) of any abatement of, or attempt to commit, such offence, or (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence,. except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subor- dinate. (7). A plain reading of the above provisions contained in Sec. 195(1)(a) informs that no court shall take cognizance of the offences punishable u/S. 172 to 188 IPC except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. In the instantcase the offence u/S. 188 IPC was allegedly committed. The complaint was not filed by the public servant concerned. In the instantcase the offence u/S. 188 IPC was allegedly committed. The complaint was not filed by the public servant concerned. Mere sending of the complaint of the complainant u/S. 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation by police would not amount to filing a complaint by the public servant concerned in this case. On receipt of the complaint from the complainant, the Magistrate was required to make his satisfaction with regard tothe commission of offence u/S. 188 IPC which was not done in the present case. (8). In view of the above discussion the cognizance taken in this case by the learned Magistrate of the offences u/Ss. 147, 341, 352 and 447 IPC is hit by the provisions of Sec. 195 Cr.P.C. read with Sec. 188 IPC. Continuation of criminal proceedings on the basis of non-maintainable complaint and invalid cognizance ofthose offences by the Magistrate amount to abuse of the process of Court. Consequently such proceedings are quashed and directed to be dropped.