JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. R. Sahu, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner as well as Mr. K. Khan, learned Addl. Sr. State counsel on behalf of the State respondent. 2. The petitioner’s case in a nutshell is that: “The instant criminal petition U/S 482 Cr.P.C. is preferred to set aside and quash the proceeding of G.R. Case No. 80 of 2017 u/s 188/34 I.P.C. pending adjudication in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nongpoh in terms of statutory bar under 195 Cr.P.C. The brief fact of the case was that an F.I.R. was lodged to the officer In-charge, Nongpoh Police Station by Shri. I. Dkhar and Shri. P. Tyngkan, both Enforcement Inspector (T), I.C 13th Mile Weigh Bridge alleging violation of the order of the Honourable N.G.T. and the District Magistrate by the coal laden truck’ driver, handyman and owners. The matter was charge sheeted against the Petitioner and others under section 118/34 I.P.C. and thereafter the learned Judicial Magistrate without application of judicious mind took cognizance of matter and summoned the Petitioner to stand in trial despite the fact that there is a clear legal bar under 195 Cr. P.C. to take cognizance of offence 188 IPC except on the complaint in writing by the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. Hence, this Petition.” 3. Mr. R. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that as per Section 195 Cr.P.C., no Court can take cognizance until and unless the complaint is lodged by a concerned public servant whose order has been violated. 4. In this instant case, the order of the N.G.T or the DC has been violated, so in such circumstances, the N.G.T. or the DC concerned should have filed the FIR and not the Enforcement Inspector. 5. In reply, Mr. K. Khan, learned Addl. Sr. State counsel submits that it is not correct that the complainant is not a public servant. He is a Government servant and comes within the purview of Section 21 (8) of the IPC, so he has got every right to file the complaint. 6. After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, the question arises whether the FIR dated 22-04-2017 is filed by a public servant or not? 7. He is a Government servant and comes within the purview of Section 21 (8) of the IPC, so he has got every right to file the complaint. 6. After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, the question arises whether the FIR dated 22-04-2017 is filed by a public servant or not? 7. On perusal of Section 195 Cr.P.C., it is understood that a public servant concerned can file the complaint or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. The meaning of public servant has already been defined in Section 21 IPC, so repetition of the same is not necessary. So now, a combine reading of Section 195 Cr.P.C. as well as Section 21 IPC, it is clear that a government official on duty has every right to file a complaint if he finds any order of the Court, Tribunal or District Administration is violated. Therefore, I do not find any merit to interfere with the instant petition. 8. Accordingly, the petition is rejected, dismissed and stands disposed of. 9. No order as to costs. 10. Registry is directed to send back the lower court case record to the concerned court along with a copy of this judgment.