JUDGMENT 1. - The instant miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 8.6.2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mandalgarh in Criminal Case No. 95/2007 taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offence under Section 186 I.P.C., as affirmed in the Revision Petition No. 146/2007 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bhilwara vide order dated 20.8.2007. 2. The challenge to the proceedings has been made on the ground that the complaint was filed by the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police Station, Mandalgarh to the Station House Officer regarding certain allegations against the petitioner and thereafter the Station House Officer proceeded to make an inquiry into the complaint filed for the offence under Section 186 I.P.C. Based on the conclusion of the inquiry, the complaint was filed by the Station House Officer through the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the offence under Section 186 I.P.C. and the learned Magistrate straightway on the complaint, without recording statements of witnesses, proceeded to take cognizance against the petitioner for the offence under Section 186 I.P.C. Learned counsel submits that the Station House Officer was incompetent to conduct an inquiry on the complaint for the offence under Section 186 I.P.C. without there being a direction of the Court because Section 155 Cr.P.C. bars such an inquiry. Thus, he submits that the impugned order taking cognizance is per se illegal and deserves to be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions of this Court rendered in Vijendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 2004 (2) R.Cr.D. 165 (Raj.) and Deepak Arora & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, 2010 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 248 . 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the miscellaneous petition and submits that the petitioner being an advocate was found to be obstructing the police officials whilst discharing their official duties and as such no interference is called for by this Court in the impugned orders. 4. Having considered the arguments advanced at the bar and after going through the material available on record, it becomes apparent that the complaint has been filed in this case for the offence under Section 186 I.P.C., such is non-cognizable and the Station House Officer took it upon himself to conduct inquiry and then submitted the complaint along with the statements of witnesses recorded during the inquiry. Obviously, the Station House Officer was incompetent to conduct the inquiry in relation to a non-cognizable offence without an order of the Court. 5. Resultantly, the impugned order taking cognizance, which is based on the result of illegal inquiry conducted by the Station House Officer, cannot be sustained. 6. The upshot of the above discussion is that the miscellaneous petition succeeds, the impugned order dated 8.6.2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mandalgarh, district Bhilwara in Criminal Case No. 95/2007 is quashed. However, if at all the complainant is aggrieved of any act of the petitioner, he shall be at liberty to take proceedings as provided under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. The stay petition stands disposed of.Petition allowed. *******