JUDGMENT : 1. Through the instant writ petition filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter for short, Cr.P.C), the petitioner seeks following relief : - “Quash the FIR No.30 of 2012 dated 27th March, 2012 registered with Police Station, Gangyal, Jammu for commission of offence under Section 188 RPC and Section 13/14/16/21 J&K Brick Kiln (Regulations) Act, 2010 and consequential investigation conducted so far.” 2. The petitioner claims to be the proprietor of Shiva Brick Kiln which is engaged in the manufacture of the bricks at Village Sikanderpur, Tehsil and District Jammu. It is stated that petitioner has been issued licence by the Licensing Authority for running the aforesaid Brick Kiln and the said license has been renewed upto 31.03.2013. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 27th March, 2012 about 7.00 a.m., petitioner came to know that the bricks which were being carried away by the purchasers after the purchase from the premises of the Brick Kiln, have been seized by Police at Police Station, Gangyal, Jammu. It is stated that on the same day i.e., 27th March, 2012 an FIR No.30 of 2112 for commission of offence under Section 188 RPC and Section 13/14/16/21 of the J&K Brick Kiln (Regulations), Act 2010, came to be registered by the In-charge Police Station, Gangyal. It is stated that entire facts of the aforesaid FIR were manipulated for ulterior motives, as it is impossible to have communication generated from the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Jammu more particularly, when the office time in the month of March is 10.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. It is further stated that even before the commencement of the investigation and after the registration of FIR, the vehicle had been seized. It is further stated that inasmuch as the FIR is registered on 27th March, 2012, the bricks are seized on the same day in the morning and in the FIR the communication which forms the basis of the FIR shows that the Deputy Commissioner has alleged that the office has received report from the Legal Metrology Department about the examination of the Bricks. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that an application was filed before the Magistrate seeking status report in the FIR. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that an application was filed before the Magistrate seeking status report in the FIR. It is stated that perusal of the status report submitted before the Magistrate would reveal that it is admitted by the Investigation Officer that after the registration of the FIR when investigation was entrusted to him, he seized the bricks and thereafter he seized 10 bricks each from the said vehicles for the purpose of their examination. It is stated that when the seizure of the bricks was made after the registration of the FIR, then it is not understandable as to how the District Magistrate in his communication has reported to the Police about his having already received the report from the Legal Metrology Department. Further, the report submitted before the Magistrate shows that the Investigating Officer has himself admitted that the case is non-cognizable in nature, but even then investigation in FIR has not been closed so far. It is stated that even if the allegations leveled in the FIR are taken on their face value and accepted in their entirety, even then they do not constitute any cognizable offence justifying the registration of FIR and investigation by the Police Officer. It is further stated that there is legal bar in the J&K Brick Kiln (Regulations) Act, 2010 to take cognizance of the offence under the said Act and offences under the said Act are non-cognizable. Therefore, respondent No. 2 has no jurisdiction to register the FIR and start the investigation as he is not the licensing authority. It is stated that admittedly Deputy Commissioner is the licensing authority and the cognizance of the offence under this Act can only be taken by the Court on a complaint made by the Deputy Commissioner. 5. It is submitted that consignment of the bricks which has been purchased by the purchaser was given to him along with the bill and the said bill has been seized by the Investigating Officer and one copy of the bill was with the purchaser also, therefore, it is not understandable as to how the petitioner is being saddled with the liability under Section 16 of the J&K Brick Kiln (Regulations) Act, 2010 when the purchaser was carrying the bricks along with the bills. 6. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that under Section 22 of the J&K Brick Kiln (Regulations) Act 2010, the offence is non-cognizable as such, no FIR can be registered by the Police under Section 22. 7. It is further stated that malafide of the respondent No. 2 can be judged from the fact that on one communication of the Deputy Commissioner, Jammu, vehicles are seized and the respondent No. 2 himself comments that the offence is non-cognizable. In the said communication of the Deputy Commissioner, the Naka was laid, vehicles seized, drivers arrested. Consequently, the aforesaid communication is found to have been made the basis of registration of the FIR and seizure of the said bricks for the purposes. It is stated that it is not understandable as to how the respondent No.2 has given his observations that the offence is not cognizable. This act of the respondents shows the malafide exercise of power for ulterior motives to harass the brick kiln owners. 8. It is stated that offence under Section 188 RPC has been unfortunately saddled by the respondent No. 2 illegally as he has not even bothered to see the contents of Section 188 RPC. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that provisions of Section 188 RPC have been invoked to deliberately register the FIR and to harass the petitioner. 10. I have considered the rival contentions. I have also gone through the relevant law in this regard. 11. From the perusal of FIR No.30/2012, it reveals that petitioner has been booked u/s sections 13/14/16/21 of the J&K Brick Kiln (Regulations), Act 2010 and under Section 188 RPC. 12. Section 13 of The Jammu & Kashmir Brick Kiln (Regulations), Act 2010, deals with Fixation of Price of bricks by the Government for the whole State or for different areas thereof and different prices may be fixed for different kinds of bricks having regard to the weight, size and compressive strength of bricks. Section 14 of the Act, specifies Quality of Bricks manufactured by the licenced kiln owner which shall conform to the standards set for such product by the Indian Bureau of Standards. Section 16 deals with Sale Bill that every consignment of bricks whether carried by vehicles, carts or any other mode, shall invariably be accompanied by a valid sale bill as prescribed under law in force. Section 16 deals with Sale Bill that every consignment of bricks whether carried by vehicles, carts or any other mode, shall invariably be accompanied by a valid sale bill as prescribed under law in force. Section 21 defines Penalties; that if any person contravenes or abets contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder, he shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with the fine which may extend to fifty thousand or with both. 13. Section 22 of J&K Brick Kiln (Regulations), Act 2010 reads as under:- “22. Cognizance of Offence.- No court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under the Act except on the report in writing of the facts constituting such offence made by the licensing authority or any person duly authorized by the Government in this regard.” 14. From bare perusal of this section, it is clear that cognizance of offences under sections 13/14/16/21 of the J&K Brick Kiln (Regulations), Act 2010 can be taken by the Court on the report filed by the licensing authority or any other person duly authorized by the government in this behalf. But in present case, it is not so as no such report has been filed by licensing authority or any other person duly authorized by the government. 15. Section 188 RPC 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 imprisonment which may extend to one year and shall also be liable to fine; and if such disobedience causes or tends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, shall be punished with imprisonment which shall not be less than three months but may extend to two years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.—It is not necessary that the offender should intend to produce harm, or contemplate his disobedience as likely to produce harm. 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.” 16. Section 188 RPC thus has following essentials:- 1. That there must be an order promulgated by the public servant; 2. That the public servant must have been fully empowered to promulgate such order; 3. That the person having knowledge of such order and directed by such order; (a) to abstain from certain act; or (b) to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management, has disobeyed such direction. 4. That such disobedience causes or intends to cause; (i) Obstruction, annoyance or injury or risk of it, to any person lawfully employed; or (ii) Danger to human life, health or safety (iii) A riot or affray. 17. In present case, no such promulgation issued by the public servant has been place on record. Further, section 195 of Cr.P.C. reads as under:- “195. (1) No Court shall take cognizance- (a) Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants.- Of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 of the Ranbir Penal Code, except on a complaint in writing of public servant concerned, or of some other public servant to whom he is subordinate. (b) ----------------------- This provision prescribes as an exception to general rule continued in section 190 Cr.p.c that any person can set criminal law in motion by making complaint; because it prohibits the court from taking cognizance of certain offences ( 172-188 RPC ) or otherwise even entertaining the complaint by court, unless it is moved by specific authority. This bar is applicable to both cognizable and non-cognizable offences.” 18. This bar is applicable to both cognizable and non-cognizable offences.” 18. In AIR 2010 SC 3718 in case titled C. Muniappan v. State of Tamil Naidu, it is held as under:- The test of whether there is evasion or non-compliance of Section 195 Cr.PC or not, is whether the facts disclose primarily and essentially an offence for which a complaint of the court or of a public servant is required. In Basir-ul-Haq & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal, AIR 1953 SC 293 ; and Durgacharan Naik & Ors v. State of Orissa, AIR 1966 SC 1775 , this Court held that the provisions of this Section cannot be evaded by describing the offence as one being punishable under some other sections of IPC, though in truth and substance, the offence falls in a category mentioned in Section 195Cr.PC. Thus, cognizance of such an offence cannot be taken by mis-describing it or by putting a wrong label on it. 22. In M.S. Ahlawat v. State of Haryana & Anr., AIR 2000 SC 168 , this Court considered the matter at length and held as under : "....Provisions of Section 195 CrPC are mandatory and no court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of any of the offences mentioned therein unless there is a complaint in writing as required under that section." (Emphasis added) 23. In Sachida Nand Singh & Anr. v. State of Bihar & Anr., (1998) 2 SCC 493 , this Court while dealing with this issue observed as under : "7. ….Section 190 of the Code empowers "any magistrate of the first class" to take cognizance of "any offence" upon receiving a complaint, or police report or information or upon his own knowledge. Section 195 restricts such general powers of the magistrate, and the general right of a person to move the court with a complaint to that extent curtailed. It is a well-recognised canon of interpretation that provision curbing the general jurisdiction of the court must normally receive strict interpretation unless the statute or the context requires otherwise." (Emphasis supplied) 24. In Daulat Ram v. State of Punjab, AIR 1962 SC 1206 , this Court considered the nature of the provisions of Section 195 Cr.PC. It is a well-recognised canon of interpretation that provision curbing the general jurisdiction of the court must normally receive strict interpretation unless the statute or the context requires otherwise." (Emphasis supplied) 24. In Daulat Ram v. State of Punjab, AIR 1962 SC 1206 , this Court considered the nature of the provisions of Section 195 Cr.PC. In the said case, cognizance had been taken on the police report by the Magistrate and the appellant therein had been tried and convicted, though the concerned public servant, the Tahsildar had not filed any complaint. This Court held as under: "The cognizance of the case was therefore wrongly assumed by the court without the complaint in writing of the public servant, namely, the Tahsildar in this case. The trial was thus without jurisdiction ab initio and the conviction cannot be maintained. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the conviction of the appellant and the sentence passed on him are set aside." (Emphasis added) 25. Thus, in view of the above, the law can be summarized to the effect that there must be a complaint by the pubic servant whose lawful order has not been complied with. The complaint must be in writing. The provisions of Section 195Cr.PC are mandatory. Non-compliance of it would vitiate the prosecution and all other consequential orders. The Court cannot assume the cognizance of the case without such complaint. In the absence of such a complaint, the trial and conviction will be void ab initio being without jurisdiction. 26. Learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that no charge could have been framed under Section 188 IPC in the absence of a written complaint by the officer authorised for that purpose, the conviction under Section 188 IPC is not sustainable. More so, it falsifies the very genesis of the case of the prosecution as the prohibitory orders had not been violated, no subsequent incident could occur. Thus, entire prosecution case falls. 27. Undoubtedly, the law does not permit taking cognizance of any offence under Section 188 IPC, unless there is a complaint in writing by the competent Public Servant. In the instant case, no such complaint had ever been filed. In such an eventuality and taking into account the settled legal principles in this regard, we are of the view that it was not permissible for the trial Court to frame a charge under Section 188 IPC. In the instant case, no such complaint had ever been filed. In such an eventuality and taking into account the settled legal principles in this regard, we are of the view that it was not permissible for the trial Court to frame a charge under Section 188 IPC. However, we do not agree with the further submission that absence of a complaint under Section 195 Cr.PC falsifies the genesis of the prosecution's case and is fatal to the entire prosecution case. There is ample evidence on record to show that there was a prohibitory order; which had been issued by the competent officer one day before; it had been given due publicity and had been brought to the notice of the public at large; it has been violated as there is no denial even by the accused persons that there was no ‘Rasta Roko Andolan'. Unfortunately, the agitation which initially started peacefully turned ugly and violent when the public transport vehicles were subjected to attack and damage. In such an eventuality, we hold that in case the charges under Section 188 IPC are quashed, it would by no means have any bearing on the case of the prosecution, so far as the charges for other offences are concerned.” 19. In view of above law, it is quite clear that Court cannot take cognizance on police report for violation of Section 188 RPC unless a complaint in writing is made by the competent Public Servant who has issued promulgation or of some other public servant to whom he is subordinate. Similarly section 22 of J&K Brick Kiln (Regulations), Act 2010 debars court from taking cognizance without report being filed by competent authority. Complaint has been defined in Section 4(e) Cr.PC, which means allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under the code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include the report of police officer. So police cannot lodge FIR and investigate the matter in view of this definition. 20. In view of above discussion and law on the point, this petition is allowed. FIR No.30 of 2012 dated 27th March, 2012 registered with Police Station, Gangyal, Jammu for commission of offence under Section 188 RPC and Section 13/14/16/21 J&K Brick Kiln (Regulations) Act, 2010 is quashed.