Honble KHAN, J. – By this petition u/S. 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner-accused challenge the order dated 4.12.1991 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/Ss. 147, 341, 352 & 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 appears 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 Court at Kota where Panthoo Ram (co- accused), purporting to act as Vyavasthpak 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 complainant appear to have filed suit No. 131 of 1991 against Panthu Lal and Anr. 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 10.6.1991 but the same was vacated on 2.6.1992 after hearing 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 complainant filed a joint complaint in the Court of the learned Magistrate alleging therein that on 4.8.1991 at about 12.00 at noon the petitioners and other accused entered 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 & 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. After investigation the police submitted a chargesheet whereupon the learned Magistrate took cogni- zance of offences u/Ss. 147, 341, 352 & 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 Raj. & 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 date of commission of the alleged offences in this case and the complained act of the petitioners attracted the provisions of Sec. 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 pro- perty in his possession or under his management, disobeys such direction, shall, if such disobedience causes 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. A bare reading of Sec. 188 IPC tells that the disobedience of an order promulgated by a Court (besides attracting other provisions like O. 39 Rr. A bare reading of Sec. 188 IPC tells that the disobedience of an order promulgated by a Court (besides attracting other provisions like O. 39 Rr. 1 & 2 CPC) would make the act of disobedience of the order an offence, punishable. In the instant case the injunction order made and promulgated on 10.6.1991 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 com- plainant 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 trespass punishable 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 10.6.1991. That order was therefore, violated or disobeyed. An offence punishable u/S. 188 IPC was thus allegedly committed. (6). 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 relatingto documents given in evidence. : (1) No Court shall take cognizance– (a) (i) of any offence punishable u/Ss. 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the IPC (45 of 1860), or (ii) of any abetment 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 subordinate. 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/Ss. 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 instant case the offence u/S. 188 IPC was allegedly committed. The complaint was not filed by the public servant concerned. 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 instant case 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 to the commission of offence u/S. 188 IPC which was not done in the present case. (7). In view of the above discussion the cognizance taken in this case by the learned Magistrate of the offences u/Ss. 147, 341, 352 & 447 is hit by the provisions of Sec. 195 Cr.P.C. r/w Sec. 188 IPC. Continuation of criminal proceedings on the basis of non-maintainable complaint and invalid cognizance of those offences by the Magistrate amount to abuse of the process of Court. Consequently such procee- dings are quashed and directed to be dropped.