JUDGMENT : Shib Sadhan Sadhu, J. 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 read with Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr. P.C. for the sake of brevity) seeking quashment of the proceedings being G.R case No.581 of 2013 arising out of Jaipur P.S case No.54/13 dated 27.05.2013 under Sections 188/120B/506 of the Indian Penal Code in which charge-sheet No.23 of 2014 dated 27.03.2014 has been filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purulia Sadar against the present petitioners. 2. As per prosecution, the de facto complainant, Inspector of police, Arun Kumar Bagdi, I/C Jaipur P.S, lodged a suo motu complaint to the effect that in view of prevailing law and order situation and apprehending serious breach of peace during holding of the half yearly DMS from 24.05.2013 to 26.05.2013 by the followers of Ranchi Administration of Ananda Marga Pracaraka Sangha, the Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate, Purulia issued a restraint order under Section 144(2) Cr. P.C. on 22.05.2013 restraining both the groups of Ananda Marga Pracaraka Sangha up to 27.05.2013 and such order was promulgated by serving upon both the groups on 23.05.2013. But about 150 followers of Ranchi Administration with the conspiracy of the present petitioners entered into the DMS grounds on 24.05.2013, 25.05.2013 and 26.05.2013 knowing fully well that the restraint order under Section 144 (2 Cr. P.C) was in force. They violated the order voluntarily, entered into the ground and stayed up to 26.05.2013. On the basis of such complaint Jaipur P.S case No.54 of 2013 dated 27.05.2013 under Section 188/120B/ 506 IPC was registered. That case was investigated into and charge-sheet was submitted under Section 188/120B 506 IPC against the present petitioners. 3. Mr. Chatterjee, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, argued that the allegations made in the suo motu complaint lodged by the I/C Jaipur P.S are absolutely false and concocted and even if those are accepted as it is, do not make out any case against the accused/petitioners nor do they constitute any offence against them. He further contended that the alleged order under Section 144(2) Cr. P.C) has been set aside in Criminal Revision No. 31 of 2013 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge 3rd Court, Purulia. He further contended that the alleged order under Section 144(2) Cr. P.C) has been set aside in Criminal Revision No. 31 of 2013 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge 3rd Court, Purulia. Therefore, according to him, the instant proceeding is nothing but a sheer abuse of process of law and it is liable to be quashed. 4. Mr. Ghosh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, submitted that whether the allegation brought against the accused/petitioners is true or false cannot be adjudicated by this Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction. He further submitted that when the charge-sheet has been submitted the accused/petitioners would have to face the trial and they would be at liberty to raise their defence at the time of trial. Mr. Ghosh, therefore, would, contend that the proceeding is not liable to be quashed and the revisional application should be dismissed. 5. Having regard to the rival contention and submission, the moot question arises for consideration is whether in absence of any complaint lodged by the Public Servant concerned against the present petitioners they can be proceeded against and tried under Section 188 of the IPC on the strength of the charge-sheet filed against them. 6. Deliberating on this score, I think it appropriate to mention that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anil Ritolla @ A.K. Ritolia reported in AIR 2007 SC(Supp.) 1002, 2008 Cr.L.J. 353 has observed that when the statue provides a thing to be done in particular manner for a particular remedy, then appropriate action should be taken thereunder. 7. It is very surprising that the police has registered an offence under Section 188 IPC against the present petitioners and the Court has taken cognizance thereupon. As per Section 195 of the Cr. P.C, it is apparent that for the prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offence relating to documents given in evidence procedure falls under Section 195(1)(a) of Cr. P.C which lays down that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code except on a complaint in writing of the Public Servant concerned or of some other Public Servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. The compliant has been defined under Section 2(d) of the Cr. P.C which lays down that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code except on a complaint in writing of the Public Servant concerned or of some other Public Servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. The compliant has been defined under Section 2(d) of the Cr. P.C which is reproduced hereinbelow as under: “Complaint means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report.” 8. Undisputedly, in the instant case, the Inspector of police being I/C Jaipur P.S has lodged the complaint suo motu whereupon offence was registered by him under Section 188 and some other Sections of IPC and challan has been filed before the Court who has taken the cognizance. In my opinion the said action does not satisfy the requirement of Section 195 of Cr. P.C. Once Section 195 Cr. P.C uses the word “complaint” which is defined under Section 2(d), then it may be understood, the complaint must be oral or in writing to a Magistrate. The challan filed by the police on the basis of some information of a police officer would not partake the character of a complaint as provided under Section 2(d), because it does not include a police report. I am fortified to make such observation from the ratio of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab V. Brij Lal Palta reported in AIR 1969 Supreme Court 355. 9. In State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, 1992 SCC (Cri) 426, AIR 1992 SC 604 the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the extraordinary power under Article 226 or inherent power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. The extraordinary power or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction upon the Court to act according to its whim or caprice. The Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint. The extraordinary power or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction upon the Court to act according to its whim or caprice. The Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint. The Hon’ble Supreme Court noted the following categories of cases wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice though it may not be possible to lay down and precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases where such power should be exercised. i. Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. ii. Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. iii. Where the controverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. iv. Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. v. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently importable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. vi. v. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently importable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. vi. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of Code or the concerned Act under which a criminal proceeding is instituted to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. vii. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 10. Thus, as per the aforesaid guideline if the proceedings/prosecution clearly appears to be abuse of process of law then inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of Cr. P.C may be invoked. In the facts of the present case as discussed hereinabove it is apparent that the ingredients of the offences under Sections 188/120B/506 IPC are conspicuously missing, while the registration of an offence under Section 188 of IPC by police is expressly barred, since the procedure as specified under Section 195(1)(a) of Cr. P.C. has not been followed. Therefore, the filing of the charge-sheet bearing No.23 of 2014 before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purulia Sadar is clearly abuse of the process of law and in my opinion, it is a fit case in which inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. deserves to be invoked. 11. Consequently, this petition is allowed. The charge-sheet as filed against the present petitioners for an offence under Section 188/120B/506 IPC is hereby quashed. However, I make no order as to costs. 12. Criminal Section is directed to deliver urgent photastat certified copy of this judgment to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible, on compliance of all formalities.