JUDGMENT : Rajnesh Oswal, J.-The petitioner-Company has filed this petition under Section 561-A Cr.P.C (now Section 482 Cr.P.C) seeking quashing of FIR bearing No.64/2015 dated 25.07.2015 registered with the Police Station Kud for commission of offence under Section 188 RPC primarily on the following grounds: a) That a bare perusal of the FIR will show that no offence under Section 188 R.P.C is made out and further the perusal of the communication shows that the Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur had proposed the site adjoining K.V School, Chenani on down side near local Nallah for muck dumping i.e. on the land earmarked for construction of proposed building of Degree College, Chenani and ITI building and there is no prohibition as such in the area for not dumping the muck at any other site. b) That there is no order whatsoever directing the petitioner to abstain from certain act for invoking the provisions of Section 188 RPC, the disobedience of which only can result into the initiation of the proceedings under Section 188 RPC. c) That the communication dated 19.09.2014, the violation of which led to registration of FIR was directed to the Project Director Leighton Company CNTL, Chenani, who was the Sub-Contractor of the Leighton Company and the said communication was never addressed to the petitioner-company. d) That the temple site where the muck had been dumped by the Sub Contractor of the petitioner-company on the asking of the members of the temple committee is the land of the temple and there is no order prohibiting the contractor or sub contractor from dumping the muck at any other site except mentioned in the communication. e) That the Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure prohibits any prosecution under section 188 R.P.C except on a complaint on writing of a public servant concerned and admittedly in the present case, the public servant concerned is the Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur, as such, the complaint could be filed by him or his superior. 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the petition as narrated by the petitioner in the petition are that the petitioner a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, was awarded the contract of tunnel on National Highway which has its one opening on Nashri, Tehsil Batote, District Ramban and the other opening at village Madha, Tehsil Chenani District Udhampur. The petitioner company had engaged Leighton Contractors (India) Pvt. Ltd as sub contractor of the petitioner for the execution of the aforesaid work. As a matter of fact the work in question had been entrusted by Government of India, to NHAI and the said authority had allotted the said work to the petitioner. The sub-contractor of the petitioner executed the work till December, 2014 and thereafter abandoned the same. On the asking of the Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur, the muck was dumped at the land of K.V Chenani as the same was required for leveling of this land. It is further pleaded that it transpires that the Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur on the asking of the Executive Engineer, PWD (R&B) Division, Udhampur had proposed one more site for dumping of muck in order to level the same for the proposed building of Degree College Chenani and ITI building. As a matter of fact, many locals of the area whose private lands were not plain had sought free earth/muck for dumping in their private lands for the purpose of leveling the same. While the work was being executed by the Leighton, a temple was being constructed in village Dogra Tehsil Chenani and some time back the members of the temple committee requested the sub contractor of the petitioner for leveling the temple site which was being constructed in the private land. The sub contractor, as such dumped some muck free of cost about one year back in order to enable the construction of temple, thereafter, the sub contractor left the contract and the petitioner started executing the same. The petitioner again had to engage contractors for the ancillary project work including dumping of muck. The members of the temple committee again approached the sub contractor who was executing the work of dumping the muck, for dumping the same in the land of temple. While the drivers of the dumpers were proceeding towards the temple site for dumping the muck as requested by the temple committee the trucks were seized by the respondent near the temple site on 21.07.2015. After the inquiries were conducted it was found that there was no violation of the communication No. 772/DMU/2014-15 dated 19.09.2014 issued by Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur to the Project Director Leighton Company. 3. After the inquiries were conducted it was found that there was no violation of the communication No. 772/DMU/2014-15 dated 19.09.2014 issued by Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur to the Project Director Leighton Company. 3. It is further pleaded that despite the aforesaid factual position, in order to cover up the illegal seizures of trucks on 21.07.2015, an FIR No.64/2015 dated 25.07.2015 came to be registered against the petitioner for commission of offence under Section 188 R.P.C. The petitioner has placed on record the certified copy of FIR, photographs, the order dated 19.09.2014 and the documents pertaining to the seizure of the trucks. 4. On notice, response/status report has been filed by the respondent No.2 in which it is stated that the present petition raises the disputed questions of facts those cannot be adjudicated upon in a petition under Section 561-A Cr.P.C (now Section 482 Cr.P.C). It is further stated that the petitioner has no legal right to seek indulgence of this Court for quashing of FIR registered against it for commission of offence under Section 188 R.P.C on the factual aspects. It is contended in the status report that on a written complaint, FIR No.64/2015 under Section 188 was registered at Police Station Kud and during the course of investigation, the statements of witnesses were recorded and Tipper Nos. JK02BA/3549, JK14C/6755 and JK02AP/6180 were seized. It is further stated in the response that the Investigating Officer concerned obtained the orders from the Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur regarding the prescribed land to be used for muck dumping by IL&FS company engaged in the Chenani Nashri Tunnel project and as per the order, the downside of K.V School building Chenani near local nallah was prescribed for muck dumping whereas the Tippers were dumping muck on road side at National Highway Dogra. On that count, notification under Section 188 RPC for violation of the orders has been sought from the Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur but not obtained till date and in terms of the order dated 28.08.2015 passed by this Court, the respondents were directed not to act upon the FIR. 5. Mr. Rahul Pant, learned senior counsel has vehemently argued that the ingredients of Section 188 R.P.C are lacking in the FIR in question as such, no offence is made out against the petitioner company. 6. Per contra, Mr. Vishal Bharti, learned Dy. 5. Mr. Rahul Pant, learned senior counsel has vehemently argued that the ingredients of Section 188 R.P.C are lacking in the FIR in question as such, no offence is made out against the petitioner company. 6. Per contra, Mr. Vishal Bharti, learned Dy. AG submits that the petitioner company has violated the order bearing No. 772/DMU/2014-15 dated 19.09.2014 and as such the FIR has been rightly lodged against the petitioner company. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their submissions and perused the record. 8. For facility of reference, it would be apt to reproduce Section 188 RPC hereunder: “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. It is sufficient that he knows of the order which he disobeys, and that his disobedience produces, or is likely to produce, harm”. 9. A bare perusal of Section 188 RPC would reveal that besides there being an order promulgated by the public servant and the accused having the knowledge of the same, there must be disobedience of that order and such disobedience may cause or tend to cause the consequences as mentioned in Section 188 (supra). Further the order issued by the public servant must be to restrain a person from doing a certain act or directing him to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management. Further the order issued by the public servant must be to restrain a person from doing a certain act or directing him to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management. Thus, the order should either impose a negative obligation on the part of the person restraining him from doing certain act or a positive obligation calling upon that person to do certain act with regard to a certain property in his possession or under his management. 10. The order dated 19.09.2014 bearing No.772/DMU/2014-15, the violation of which has led to the registration of FIR is reproduced hereunder: “Government of Jammu & Kashmir Office of The Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur Project Director, Leighton Company, CNTL Chenani No.772/DMU/2014-15                                                                                                                                            Dated 19.09.2014 Subject:-Four lanning Chenani to Nashri Section NH-IA from Km.89 to Km 130 new alignment of NH-IA. Sir, As per the report submitted by Executive Engineer, PWD(R&B) Division, Udhampur the proposed site in the adjoining K.V School Chenani on down side near local Nallah can be used for muck dumping land earmarked for construction of proposed building of Degree College Chenani and ITI Building ensuring that course of local Nallahs is not changed. As such, you are directed to go ahead for the purpose under rules. Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur” 11. A bare perusal of the above order dated 19.09.2014 reveals that order passed is based upon the report of Executive Engineer, PWD(R&B) Division Udhampur that the proposed site in the adjoining K.V School Chenani on down side near local Nallah can be used for muck dumping land earmarked for construction of proposed building of Degree College, Chenani and ITI building ensuring that the course of local Nallahs is not changed. The use of word “can” simply lays down the possibility of doing a particular act and it does not lay down a positive obligation on the part of the petitioner to act in that manner only. The aforesaid order also reveals that only the act of abstention, that has been ordered by the Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur is with regard to not changing the course of local nallahs. 12. In the FIR there is no whisper that the muck was dumped at a place leading to the change in the course of local nallahs. The aforesaid order also reveals that only the act of abstention, that has been ordered by the Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur is with regard to not changing the course of local nallahs. 12. In the FIR there is no whisper that the muck was dumped at a place leading to the change in the course of local nallahs. The only allegation against the petitioner is that on 21.07.2015, the petitioner company is dumping muck and other material on a place that was not prescribed for muck dumping. There is no order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur that made it obligatory on the part of the petitioner company or either its sub-contractor to unload the muck at a particular place only. There is no embargo on the part of the petitioner company not to unload the muck at any other place. The only obligation was that the course of the local nallahs should not be changed. 13. The FIR has not been lodged on the ground that because of dumping of the muck, the course of any local nallahs has been changed. Rather in the seizures, placed on record as Annexure-D, seizures have been effected, as the drivers could not furnish the permission for dumping the muck. There is also nothing on record to demonstrate that any such permission was required and even it is not the allegation in the FIR that for violation of that permission, the FIR has been lodged. 14. For lodging FIR for violation of any order under Section 188 RPC, the order must be clear, unambiguous and must prescribe the acts those are forbidden or those are required to be performed with regard to the property in possession or under the management of a person. If the order is vague from which it is not discerned that a particular act was forbidden or was required to be done with regard to the property in possession or under management in a particular manner, no FIR can be lodged for violation of the said order. 15. In State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 (SC) 604 Apex Court has held as under: “108. 15. In State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 (SC) 604 Apex Court has held as under: “108. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. 1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. 2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. 3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. 4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. 5. Where the allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 6. 5. Where the allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/ or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/ or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge”. 16. In view of all what has been discussed hereinabove, the continuation of FIR shall be an abuse of process of law and as such, this is a fit case wherein the powers under Section 561-A Cr.P.C (now Section 482) are required to be exercised by this Court. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and the impugned FIR bearing No.64/2015 dated 25.07.2015 and its consequential proceedings are quashed. 17. The petition is disposed of accordingly.