ORDER : Petitioners who are accused No.1 to 11 in C.C.No.1787/2018 pending on the file of the Prl. JMFC Court for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341, 284 and 188 read with Section 149 of IPC have approached this court with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in the said case as against them. 2. Facts of the case are that the Police Inspector of Station Bazar Police, Kalaburagi has lodged a complaint on 10.11.2020 before the Station House officer of the said Police Station alleging that on 10.11.2010 at about 6.00 am when he was on duty and making public announcement as per the direction of the Deputy Commissioner of the District with regard to Section 144 of the Cr.P.C being imposed in the locality in view of Tippu Sultan Jayanthi celebration, at about 10.00 am he found certain persons violating the prohibitory orders and were shouting slogan and obstructing the public traffic. When the complainant went and tried to prevent them from doing so, they continued with their act and therefore complainant arrested them and brought them to the police station, registered a case against them, lodged a complaint against them, on the basis of which an FIR in Crime No.219/2107 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 283, 341 and 188 read with Section 149 of IPC. After investigation charge sheet has been filed in the said case against the petitioners for the alleged offences. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the alleged offences in view of the bar under Section 195 of Cr.P.C because the charge sheet offences included Section 188 of IPC. He submitted that the complaint is investigated by the police and on the basis of the report filed by the police the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the alleged offences which is bad in law. 4. In support of his contentions he has relied on the judgment of this court in the case of K. Shivaram Bijapur and others in Crl.P.No.201035/2016 dated 01.02.2017 and also in the case of Mallikarjuna and others in Crl.P.No.100969/2016 disposed of on 02.02.2017. 5. 4. In support of his contentions he has relied on the judgment of this court in the case of K. Shivaram Bijapur and others in Crl.P.No.201035/2016 dated 01.02.2017 and also in the case of Mallikarjuna and others in Crl.P.No.100969/2016 disposed of on 02.02.2017. 5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the petition contending that in addition to Section 188 of IPC there are other offences which can be tried by the learned Magistrate and therefore there is no error in the order of taking cognizance by the learned Magistrate and therefore he prays to dismiss the petition. 6. It is not in dispute that the police have filed a charge sheet in the present case even for an offence under Section 188 of IPC and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences alleged in the charge sheet including Section 188 of IPC. Section 195 of Cr.P.C is a bar for the court to take cognizance of a case for an offence punishable under Section 188 of IPC unless a public servant files a complaint in writing. The said provision clearly creates a statutory bar to the Court for taking cognizance for the alleged offence. It takes away the power under Section 190 of Cr.P.C. In the judgments of this court relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner i.e., in Crl.P.No.201035/2016 and Crl.P.No.100969/2016 this court has quashed the entire proceedings which were pending before the Trial Court only on this ground. In para 9 of the judgment in Crl.P.No.201035/2016, this court has observed as follows:- "9. As could be seen from the provisions of Section 195 of Cr.P.C the Court cannot take cognizance of the case under Section 188 of IPC unless a public servant files a complaint in writing. The said provision clearly creates a statutory bar to the Court for taking cognizance. In view of the said provision, it takes away the general power of Magistrate under Section 190 of Cr.P.C. On perusal of records there is no complaint in writing lodged by the flying squad, who has been appointed to look after the Assembly Election. It also indicates that only on the report submitted by the police, after investigation the Magistrate has taken the cognizance. When registration of case itself is illegal, taking cognizance violates the proceedings under Section 195 of Cr.P.C." 7. It also indicates that only on the report submitted by the police, after investigation the Magistrate has taken the cognizance. When registration of case itself is illegal, taking cognizance violates the proceedings under Section 195 of Cr.P.C." 7. In the case of Mallikarjuna and others in Crl.P.No.100969/2016 this court has observed in paragraphs 12 and 13 as follows :- "12. The Judicial Magistrates, who are empowered to summon the accused under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, should always keep it in mind that summoning the accused is a serious matter and the criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. The summoning order must reflect that the Magistrate has applied his judicious mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. The order of summoning the accused need not be a speaking order and a detailed one. But, it should not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. Where reasons are not assigned, however, short it may be, for conclusion that it is a fit case for issuance of summons, such summoning order would become bad in law. The Magistrate, while issuing process, are not required to meticulously examine and evaluate the materials on record. However, he is only required to record reasons, however short, or brief it may be, which indicate the application of mind by the Magistrate. That is all expected from him at that stage. The expression "opinion" and "sufficient ground" under Section 204 gives an indication that before issuing process, the Magistrate should show that of what material, at least, he has formed his opinion that it is a fit case to issue process. Without applying his judicious mind and without even looking to the facts of the case, mechanically, issuing process only on the basis of the operative portion of the charge sheet or the complaint does not amount to application of mind by a Magistrate. 13. Looking to the above facts and circumstances and the legal infirmities found in the above said case, I am of the opinion that the learned Magistrate, without applying his judicious mind, has mechanically passed an order taking cognizance of the offences and the same is bad in law. All further proceedings, which has taken place in pursuance of that, is vitiated by a serious irregularity which cannot be cured. All further proceedings, which has taken place in pursuance of that, is vitiated by a serious irregularity which cannot be cured. Hence, there is no other go for this Court but to quash the proceedings." 8. Therefore, it is very clear that even in this case the learned Magistrate has not applied his judicious mind before taking cognizance of the alleged offence stated in the charge sheet. Under the circumstances, the order of taking cognizance of the offences and all further proceedings there afterwards gets vitiated, which cannot be cured and therefore impugned proceedings cannot be permitted to continue before the Court below. Under the circumstances, the following order is passed : ORDER Criminal petition is allowed. The entire proceedings in C.C.No.1787/2018 pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Kalaburagi in Crime No.219/2017 registered by the Station Bazar Police, Kalabuargi against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341, 283 and 188 read with Section 149 of IPC is quashed against the petitioners.