ORDER : In the instant petition, order dated 7.12.2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. VI, Shimla in Case No. 429 of 2018, has been assailed by petitioners, whereby on the basis of final report submitted by police under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘Cr.PC), cognizance has been taken by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class against the petitioners for an offence alleged to have been committed under Section 188 of IPC read with Section 34 IPC. 2. It is the case of prosecution that on 15.7.2018, on the basis of statement of Smt. Usha Sharma, complainant, recorded by Investigating Officer, a case under Section 188 read with Section 34 IPC was registered by police for violation of order passed by Municipal Corporation Shimla, restraining the petitioners from carrying out construction and repair of building. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that in view of provisions of Section 195 of Cr.P.C., cognizance of offence committed under Section 188 of IPC can only be taken on the basis of complaint, made in writing, of public servant concerned or some other public servant administratively superior to him, whereas, in present case, neither the public servant concerned, who had issued the order, nor any other officer superior to him, has made any complaint either to police or to the Court. Therefore, he has prayed for quashing the FIR as well as proceedings in reference in this case. 4. Learned counsel for petitioners, to substantiate his plea, has placed reliance upon Daulat Ram vs. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1962 SC 1206 ; and C. Muniappan and others vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (2010)9 SCC 567 . 5. Section 195 Cr.P.C. 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. 5. Section 195 Cr.P.C. 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. (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 sub-section (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.” 6. The Supreme Court in Dault Ram’s case has held that Section 195 of Cr.P.C. contemplates that complaint must be in writing, made by public servant concerned, and that where there is non-compliance of provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C., the Court cannot take cognizance of the case covered under the provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C. and any trial conducted by the trial Court in absence of such compliance is without jurisdiction ab initio and conviction cannot be maintained in such situation. 7. In C. Muniappan’s case the Supreme Court has observed:- “28. Section 195(a)(i) Cr.PC bars the court from taking cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 188 IPC or abetment or attempt to commit the same, unless, there is a written complaint by the public servant concerned for contempt of his lawful order. The object of this provision is to provide for a particular procedure in a case of contempt of the lawful authority of the public servant. The court lacks competence to take cognizance in certain types of offences enumerated therein. The object of this provision is to provide for a particular procedure in a case of contempt of the lawful authority of the public servant. The court lacks competence to take cognizance in certain types of offences enumerated therein. The legislative intent behind such a provision has been that an individual should not face criminal prosecution instituted upon insufficient grounds by persons actuated by malice, ill-will or frivolity of disposition and to save the time of the criminal courts being wasted by endless prosecutions. This provision has been carved out as an exception to the general rule contained under Section 190 Cr.PC that any person can set the law in motion by making a complaint, as it prohibits the court from taking cognizance of certain offences until and unless a complaint has been made by some particular authority or person. Other provisions in the Cr.PC like sections 196 and 198 do not lay down any rule of procedure, rather, they only create a bar that unless some requirements are complied with, the court shall not take cognizance of an offence described in those Sections. (vide Govind Mehta v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1971 SC 1708 ; Patel Laljibhai Somabhai v. The State of Gujarat, AIR 1971 SC 1935 ; Surjit Singh & Ors. v. Balbir Singh, (1996) 3 SCC 533 ; State of Punjab v. Raj Singh & Anr., (1998) 2 SCC 391 ; K. Vengadachalam v. K.C. Palanisamy & Ors., (2005) 7 SCC 352 ; and Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr. v. Meenakshi Marwah & Anr., (2005)7 SCC 370). 29. 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 195 Cr.PC. Thus, cognizance of such an offence cannot be taken by mis-describing it or by putting a wrong label on it. 30. Thus, cognizance of such an offence cannot be taken by mis-describing it or by putting a wrong label on it. 30. In M.S. Ahlawat v. State of Haryana & Anr., AIR 2000 SC 168 , this Court considered the matter at length and held as under : "5....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) 31. 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) 32. 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 : "4…..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. 5. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the conviction of the appellant and the sentence passed on him are set aside." (Emphasis added) 33. 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 195 Cr.PC are mandatory. Non-compliance of it would vitiate the prosecution and all other consequential orders. 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 195 Cr.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.” 8. Admittedly, in present case, there is no verbal much less written complaint either by officer concerned, whose order is stated to have been violated by the petitioners, nor by an officer superior to him. 9. In view of aforesaid exposition of law, I find that learned Magistrate was not having any jurisdiction to take cognizance in present case against the petitioners. 10. Accordingly, cognizance taken by passing summoning order dated 7.12.2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. VI, Shimla is quashed and proceedings of Criminal Case No. 429 of 2018 tilted State Vs. Roop Lal are quashed being void ab initio for want of jurisdiction. Petition stands allowed and disposed of accordingly.