JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners while challenging the order dated 1.7.2010 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.l, Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') whereby the cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for offence punishable under Section 186 I.P.C. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the complaint under Section 186 I.P.C. was filed against the petitioners by the S.H.O., Police Station, City Kotwali, Bikaner on 30.5.2010 regarding certain allegations against the petitioners to the effect that they have obstructed the public servant in discharging of public functions. Thereafter the investigation was handed over to the A.S.I. of Police Station, City Kotwali, who, after recording the statement of other police personnels, had submitted an application before the trial court with a prayer for taking cognizance against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Section 186 I.P.C. The trial court took cognizance against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 186 I.P.C. 3. It is contended that the S.H.O. of Police Station City Kotwali, Bikaner was incompetent to conduct enquiry on the complaint regarding commission of offence punishable under Section 186 I.P.C. without there being a direction of the Court because Section 155 Cr.P.C. bars such an enquiry. It is further contended that the learned trial court, without recording the statement of the witnesses, has proceeded to take cognizance against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 186 I.P.C. straight way on the complaint in illegal manner. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners had moved an application before the trial court with a prayer for recalling the order dated 1.7.2010, however, the said application was rejected by the trial court vide order dated 14.6.2000 while holding that the trial court has no power of reviewing its own order. Hence, this criminal misc. petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the decisions rendered by this Court in Vijendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 2004(2) R.Cr.D. 165 (Raj.) , Deepak Arora & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, 2010(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 248 and Ram Avtar v. State of Rajasthan 2012(2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 806. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the criminal misc. petition and argued that there is no illegality in the impugned order, therefore, no interference is called for. 6. v. State of Rajasthan, 2010(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 248 and Ram Avtar v. State of Rajasthan 2012(2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 806. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the criminal misc. petition and argued that there is no illegality in the impugned order, therefore, no interference is called for. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 7. Section 155 Cr.P.C. reads as under:- "155. Information as to non-cognizable cases and investigation of such cases.- (1) When information is given to an officer-incharge of a Police Station of the Commission with the limits of such Station of a non-cognizable offence, he shall enter or cause to be entered the substance of the information in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf, and refer the informant to the Magistrate. (2) No Police Officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trail. (3) Any Police Officer receiving such order may exercise the same powers in respect of the Investigation (except the power to arrest without warrant) as an officer-in-charge of a Police Station may exercise in a cognizable case. (4) Where a case relates to two or more offences of which at least one is cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be a cognizable case, not withstanding that the other offences are non-cognizable." 8. As per sub-Section (2) of Section 155 Cr.P.C., no Police Officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trail. It is not in dispute that offence under Section 186 I.P.C. has been categorized as non-cognizable offence and it is also not in dispute that the learned trial court has not given any order to the police to investigate into the allegations levelled in the complaint regarding commission of offence punishable under Section 186 I.P.C. by the petitioners. Therefore, the order dated 1.7.2010 is bad in the eye of law. 9. In view of the above discussion, the order dated 1.7.2010 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.l, Bikaner in Case No.99/2010 is quashed and set aside. Therefore, the order dated 1.7.2010 is bad in the eye of law. 9. In view of the above discussion, the order dated 1.7.2010 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.l, Bikaner in Case No.99/2010 is quashed and set aside. However, if at all the complainant is aggrieved of any act of the petitioners, he will be at liberty to take proceedings as provided under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. 10. The criminal misc. petition stands disposed of. The stay petition is also disposed of. *******