ORDER This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash the proceedings in C.C.No. 776 of 2000 on the file of the learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. 2. The petitioner is the Sub-Inspector of Police, working at Anakapalle Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam District. He is aggrieved by the action of the first respondent/Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam (for short 'the Judge') in filing a complaint against him under Section 195 read with proviso (a) to Sec. 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code'), for the offence alleged to have been committed by him under Section 187 IPC. 3. The learned Magistrate took the case on file in C.C. No. 776 of 2000 and straight away issued Non Bailable Warrant (NBW) against the present petitioner. 4. It is the .case of the petitioner that he took charge as Sub-Inspector of Town Police station, Anakapalli on the AN of 25-6-2000 and discharging duties in such capacity only from that date. Prior to the said date he worked as Sub-Inspector of Police, Narsipatnam Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam District. 5. The learned Judge entrusted NBW to the SI of Police, Anakapalli in M.C.No.18 of 1986 for the arrest and production of the husband of a maintenance holder in the said case. The said NBW was not executed up to 22-10-1999. 6. It is stated that the then SI of Police, Anakapalle executed the NBW issued by the learned Judge and the husband of the maintenance holder has voluntarily paid some amounts towards maintenance. 7. It is the case of the petitioner that he took charge as SI of Police, Anakapalli Town Police station on 25-6-2000. The learned Judge issued show-cause notice on 30-8-2000 and the said notice was wrongly sent to the SI of Police, Rural Police Station, Anakapalli. As such a fresh show-cause notice was ordered on 12-10-2000 and sent on 17-11-2001 by courts letter Dis. No. 2273 for the appearance of the Sub-Inspector of Police on 22-11-2001. The learned Judge issued show-cause notice on 30-8-2000 and the said notice was wrongly sent to the SI of Police, Rural Police Station, Anakapalli. As such a fresh show-cause notice was ordered on 12-10-2000 and sent on 17-11-2001 by courts letter Dis. No. 2273 for the appearance of the Sub-Inspector of Police on 22-11-2001. The SI of Police, Town Police Station, Anakapalli, is required by the said show cause notice to show-cause as to why he should not be prosecuted for the offence under Section 187 IPC, on the ground that the SI of Police, Town Police Station, Anakapalli has failed to appear in spite of a show cause and did not execute the NBW entrusted to him for execution. 8. The petitioner filed an affidavit before the learned Judge on 14-12-2000 explaining the circumstances under which the NBW could not be executed. In the said affidavit, the petitioner submitted that the NBW could not be executed nearly for a period of be eight months before he took charge as SI of Police, Town Police Station, Anakapalli. 9. The learned Magistrate having received the complaint from the learned Judge, registered the same as C.C.No.776 of 2000 and directed NBW to be executed against the petitioner. 10. In this petition, Sri E.V. Bhagiratha Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the whole procedure adopted by the first respondent/Judge is not only strange, but also unsustainable. It is further contended that the NBW issued by the learned Magistrate on the complaint of the learned Judge for an offence punishable under Section 187 IPC is totally vitiated. 11. It is required to notice that the offence punishable under Section 187 IPC is bailable and non-cognizable. The learned Magistrate while registering the complaint filed by the learned Judge ignored this elementary and basic fact and set the law into motion against the petitioner by issuing NBW. It is rather strange that the learned Magistrate issued NBW straight away in a case, where the offence is bailable and non-cognizable. 12. Be that as it may, this court finds it difficult to discern as to what made the learned Judge to resort to this peculiar method of filing a complaint against the SI of Police for an offence under Section 187 IPC on the ground that the petitioner failed to execute the NBW issued against the husband of a maintenance holder. Be that as it may, this court finds it difficult to discern as to what made the learned Judge to resort to this peculiar method of filing a complaint against the SI of Police for an offence under Section 187 IPC on the ground that the petitioner failed to execute the NBW issued against the husband of a maintenance holder. May be the Judge is a public servant within the meaning of Section 21 of the IPC, may be the petitioner, the SI of Police is bound, by law, to render assistance to the Judge in discharge of his duties as a Judicial Officer. There is absolutely no difficulty to hold that the petitioner being a public servant is bound to assist the court and execute the NBW in terms of the directions of the court. 13. The question that falls for consideration is-Whether it is proper for the learned Judge to file a complaint against the petitioner for having committed an offence punishable under Section 187 IPC. 14. The dignity and decorum of the office held by the learned Judge, in my considered opinion does not permit him to resort to filing of such a complaint as the one filed by him. Nothing prevented the learned Judge to explore the other possibilities. The Circulars issued by this Court from time to time are clear on the subject, as to how and what steps are required to be taken by the learned Judges in case of failure on the part of the Police officers to execute NBWs. 15. Be that as it may Sec.195 of the Code mandates that no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Secs.172 to 188 (both inclusive) of IPC or of any abetment of, or attempt to commit such offence. Subsection (2) of Sec.195 of the Code says that where a complaint has been made by a public servant under clause (a) of sub-section (i) any authority to which he is administratively subordinate may order the withdrawal of the complaint and send a copy of such order to the Court; and upon its receipt by the Court, no further proceedings shall be taken on the complaint. The procedure applicable in cases mentioned in Sec.195 is prescribed by Sec.340 of the Code. The procedure applicable in cases mentioned in Sec.195 is prescribed by Sec.340 of the Code. A plain reading of sub-section (1) of Section 340 would make it clear that the procedure provided under Section 340 is applicable only in respect of the offences referred to in Clause (b) of subsection (1) of Sec.195 of the Code and not in respect of any case falling under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 195 of the Code. The offence punishable under Section 187 IPC falls under clause (a) (i) of Sec.195 of the Code. 16. In the circumstances, the complaint for an offence punishable under Section 187 IPC against a public servant can be taken cognizance only on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. Sec.195 (1) (a) may not attract to the complaint filed by the Court. The procedure prescribed in Chapter XV may not be applicable in case a complaint is filed by a Judge against a public servant for an offence punishable under Section 187 IPC. It would only mean that the complainant will be required to appear on every date of hearing before such Magistrate who took cognizance of such offence under Section 187 IPC. 17. In my considered opinion, such a situation is required to be avoided. 18. Be that as it may, the whole procedure adopted by the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam in straight away directing NBW against the petitioner, is totally erroneous and vitiated for more than one reason. The learned Magistrate having taken cognizance of the complaint filed by the learned Judge, straight away directed NBW against the petitioner, though the offence punishable under Section 187 IPC is a bailable and non-cognizable one. Obviously, the learned Magistrate was impressed by the fact that the complainant before him is no other than superior Judicial Officer holding the rank of District and Sessions Judge. In order to avoid such situations the Judicial Officer concerned in every case may have to exercise discretion and explore the available alternative modes for getting the NBW executed by the police, instead of filing complaints against the public servants for the offence punishable under Section 187 of IPC. The responsibility upon the Higher judicial officers is particularly high in this regard. The responsibility upon the Higher judicial officers is particularly high in this regard. Practice of filing complaints by the Higher Judicial Officers before the officers subordinate to them should be avoided unless one is left with no option. 19. In the instant case, however, no case against the petitioner as such is made out even if the allegations made in the complaint are taken into consideration on their face value. 20. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri E. V. Bhagiratha Rao brought to the notice of the court a Full Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in Karson Ramji Chawda v. The State of Bombay, AIR 1958 Bom. 99 and submits that a maintenance holder has alternative remedy and mode for recovery of the maintenance amount awarded by the court below. It is not necessary to go into the question, since the parties to the maintenance case are not before this Court. 21. For all the aforesaid reasons the petition is allowed. The proceedings in C.C.No.776 of 2000 on the file of the learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, including the NBW against the petitioner herein are quashed. 22. This order, however, shall not preclude the parties in M.C.No.18 of 1986 to avail such remedies as may be available to them in law.