ORDER : 1. Office objections are over ruled. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the records. 3. The Sub-Inspector of police, Jeevan Bheema Nagar Police Station submitted a charge sheet in C.C. No. 5116/2015 against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 188 of IPC. 4. The brief facts that emanates from the records are that on 10.09.2014, the Police Constable attached to Jeevan Bheema Nagar Police Station along with Police Sub- Inspector, went to the petitioner’s school situated at H.A.L. 2nd Stage and enquired the officials with regard to the orders passed by the Commissioner of police for the purpose of fixing the CC TV cameras in the schools and asked for compliance of the said order as the petitioners have not complied with the said order. It appears that the police found that the school authorities have committed the offence under Section 188 of IPC and after investigation, they submitted a charge sheet. After filing of the charge sheet, the learned Magistrate took cognizance and issued NBW against the accused at the first instance. Subsequently, on 05.06.2015, he issued summons to the accused after taking cognizance of the offence and hence, the petitioner has filed this petition. 5. The learned counsel brought to the notice of this court the jurisdiction of the court under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. to take cognizance whenever the offence invoked is under Section 188 of IPC without there being a private complaint filed by the public servant. They also drew my attention to the fact that the learned Magistrate has mechanically taken cognizance without applying his judicial mind. Therefore, the above said order as well as the entire proceedings have to be quashed. 6. I have heard the arguments by the learned HCGP for the State. 7. It is true that the charge sheet has been filed under Section 188 of IPC on the above noted allegations. Section 188 of IPC deals with the offence with reference to the disobedience to any order duly promulgated by a public servant. If there is disobedience of any Order promulgated, then the public servant who is aggrieved of the person who promulgated the Order or any Public servant authorized can file a private complaint. Section 188 of IPC deals with the offence with reference to the disobedience to any order duly promulgated by a public servant. If there is disobedience of any Order promulgated, then the public servant who is aggrieved of the person who promulgated the Order or any Public servant authorized can file a private complaint. In this regard, Section 195 of Cr.P.C. clearly indicates that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 of the Indian Penal Code except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. These provisions, in fact, have not been looked into by the learned Magistrate before passing the impugned Order. This is a glaring mistake committed by the learned Magistrate and it appears that the Magistrate passed the Order mechanically even without looking into the averments in the charge sheet to ascertain whether he has any jurisdiction to issue summons against the accused. This type of order passed without looking into the law should be deprecated, such Officers shall be properly trained in the Judicial Academy often calling them for training. The Learned Magistrate who has passed the order should have gone through the provisions under Section 188 of IPC and 195 of Cr.P.C. before issuing any process. Calling a person to the Court by issuing summons or warrant, is a very serious act of the court. If unnecessarily or without any law, any orders are passed, it virtually creates a paralytic stroke to the legal right of a person. The court cannot have any exception that due to some oversight or due to some pressure of work, such act has been done. Such explanation is not acceptable in the judicial system. It is the duty of the learned Magistrate before taking cognizance of the offence to go through the contents of the charge sheet or private complaint. First they have to ascertain whether any offence has been constituted after analyzing the averments made in the charge sheet. Secondly, they have to ascertain as to whether the court has got jurisdiction to entertain the charge sheet. Thirdly, whether there is any legal impediment to take cognizance as to whether any compliance under law is required to be made before filing such charge sheet. Secondly, they have to ascertain as to whether the court has got jurisdiction to entertain the charge sheet. Thirdly, whether there is any legal impediment to take cognizance as to whether any compliance under law is required to be made before filing such charge sheet. These are all the aspects the court has to take note before passing such order affecting liberty of a citizen, whose right of liberty is guaranteed under the constitution of India. 8. In the above said background, I have carefully perused the order passed by the learned Magistrate. The order passed by the learned Magistrate after taking cognizance is bereft of application of mind. It is clearly indicative on the face of the order sheet itself that, the order sheet is in a computerized format containing some blanks which have been filled up by the Shirastedar and placed before the learned Magistrate to pass orders. The learned Magistrate though has taken cognizance, he has perused the records and thereafter taken cognizance, it is only for the word sake, he has mentioned that he has perused the records. But he has not applied his mind and looked into the records. If he would have perused the law under Section 188 of IPC and with reference to Section 195 of Cr.P.C. he would not have taken cognizance of the above said offence. Further added to that, the learned Magistrate has issued NBW to the accused on the date of taking cognizance where it was not warranted at that point of time. Subsequently, when NBW was still pending, he has exercised power to issue summons. These are all glaring mistakes that have been committed by the learned Magistrate which clearly shows that he has not applied his mind to law and facts of the case. This type of act of the learned Magistrate is not safe and is not healthy so far the judicial system is concerned. 9. In the above said facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Order passed by the 10th ACMM is not tenable and is not sustainable either on law or facts and the same is liable to be quashed. Consequently, the entire proceedings in CC No. 51156/2015 to be quashed. 10. Accordingly, the following order is passed: (i) The petition is allowed. Consequently, the entire proceedings in CC No. 51156/2015 to be quashed. 10. Accordingly, the following order is passed: (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The proceedings in CC No. 51156/2015, a criminal case pending on the file of the 10th ACMM, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru and all further proceedings are hereby quashed. (iii) Registry is directed to send a copy of this Order to the said Magistrate wherever he is, for his further guidance and appropriate steps to be taken in this regard. A copy also to be sent to Judicial Academy for guidance in future.