ORDER 1. The petitioner before this Court has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 23/27.6.2017 passed by the Collector, Ujjain, by which, the Collector has imposed a penalty of Rs. 59.06 lacs upon the petitioner for violating section 188 of the IPC. 2. The facts of the case reveal that the petitioner company is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is having an establishment of renewable energy production at Barnagar Tahsil of District Ujjain and the allegation against the petitioner/company is that the petitioner/company has damaged a road i.e. road adjoining Banderbela to Bhuwasa. 3. The impugned order of the Collector reveals that the Collector has passed an order under sections 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and section 188 of the Indian Penal Code and the persons were prohibited for using the road by plying vehicle having weight of more than 8 tonnes. The order of the Collector reveals that the Collector has held that the petitioner/company has violated section 188 of the IPC and in those circumstances, a fine of Rs. 59.06 lacs has been inflicted upon the petitioner/company. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner have argued before this Court and in the present case, there was no violation of section 188 of the IPC and even if, it is presumed that there is a violation of section 188 of the IPC, the only remedy available to the Collector was to file a complaint by taking shelter of section 195 of the CrPC, meaning thereby, by filing a proper complaint before the learned Magistrate. 5. Learned Government Advocate, in all fairness, has stated before this Court that in case there is violation of section 188, the proper course is, to file a complaint under section 195 of the CrPC 6. In the present case, the Collector has acted as a Judicial Magistrate, meaning thereby, he has transgressed his jurisdiction. Section 188 of the IPC reads as under : "188. In the present case, the Collector has acted as a Judicial Magistrate, meaning thereby, he has transgressed his jurisdiction. Section 188 of the IPC reads as under : "188. Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant.—Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management, disobeys such direction, shall, if such disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person lawfully employed, be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both; and if such disobedience causes or trends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. Explanation.—It is not necessary that the offender should intend to produce harm, or contemplate his disobedience as likely to produce harm. It is sufficient that he knows of the order which he disobeys, and that his disobedience produces, or is likely to produce, harm. Illustration An order is promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, directing that a religious procession shall not pass down a certain street. A knowingly disobeys the order, and thereby causes danger of riot. A has committed the offence defined in this section." And section 195 of the CrPC reads as under: 195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence. A knowingly disobeys the order, and thereby causes danger of riot. A has committed the offence defined in this section." And section 195 of the CrPC reads as under: 195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence. (1) No Court shall take cognizance- (a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860 ), or (ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence, or (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate; (b) (i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely, sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or (ii) of any offence described in section 463, or punishable under section 471, section 475 or section 476, of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, or (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in sub- clause (i) or sub- clause (ii), except on the complaint in writing of that Court, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate. (2) Where a complaint has been made by a public servant under clause (a) of sub- section (1) 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: Provided that no such withdrawal shall be ordered if the trial in the Court of first instance has been concluded. (3) In clause (b) of sub- section (1), the term" Court" means a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court, and includes a Tribunal constituted by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act if declared by that Act to be a Court for the purposes of this section. (4) For the purposes of clause (b) of subsection (1), a Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the appealable decrees or sentences of such former Court, or in the case of a civil Court from whose decrees no appeal ordinarily lies, to the principal Court having ordinary original civil jurisdiction within whose local jurisdiction such Civil Court in situate: Provided that : (a) where appeals lie to more than one Court, the appellate Court of inferior jurisdiction shall be the Court to which such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate; (b) where appeals lie to a civil and also to a Revenue Court, such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the civil or Revenue Court according to the nature of the case or proceeding in connection with which the offence is alleged to have been committed. 7. The aforesaid statutory provision reveals that in case of an alleged offence, the only remedy to file complaint before the Magistrate. 8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of M.P. and another v. Jyotiraditya Scindia, reported in 2014 (1) JLJ 326 , in paragraphs 6 and 7 has held as under : “6. Applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the provisions contained under section 188 of IPC and section 195 of CrPC as well as the judgment delivered by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Jiwan Kumar's case (supra), which has also been quoted in the impugned order, the learned Single Judge held that in this case there was a violation of the statutory provisions contained under section 195 CrPC in registering the FIR as Crime No. 60/2011 for an offence under section 188 of IPC dated 13.2.2011, the same was accordingly quashed. 7. Having gone through the provisions of the law quoted and the judgment of the apex Court as also the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court and in the absence of any written submissions despite opportunity granted, we dismiss the appeal.” 9. 7. Having gone through the provisions of the law quoted and the judgment of the apex Court as also the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court and in the absence of any written submissions despite opportunity granted, we dismiss the appeal.” 9. In the considered opinion of this Court, in case, there was a breach of section 188 of IPC keeping in view the judgment delivered in the case of State of M.P. and another v. Jyotiraditya Scindia (supra), as no complaint was filed by the authority, who has passed the order under section 133 of CrPC, the order passed by the Collector deserves to be quashed and is accordingly quashed. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed, however, the Collector is at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with law. Arjun Agrawal and Prashant upadhyay for petitioner; Vibhor Khandelwal for respondent/State.