JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, learned A.P.P. for the opposite party-State. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the cognizance order dated 07.06.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Pakur in Pakuria P.S. Case No.16 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. Case No.195 of 2014, whereby, cognizance under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 of the Prevention of Defacement of Public Property Act, 1987 has been taken against the petitioner. 3. The F.I.R. was instituted pursuant to the written report of the informant namely Md. Jahir Alam, Probationary Deputy Collector, Pakur that on 15.03.2014 at about 03:50 p.m., he found two flags over the two electricity pole of Jharkhand State Electricity Board and on inquiry nothing has been disclosed to him. He found that the flag is of one political party. 4. Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the flag of the party was hoisted in electricity pole and for that the F.I.R. has been lodged. He further submits that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and there is no overt act alleged against the petitioner and there is no ingredient under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 of the Prevention of Defacement of Public Property Act, 1987. He also submits that in a very cryptic manner, the learned court below has taken the cognizance against the petitioner. 5. Learned A.P.P. for the State tried to justify the cognizance order. 6. In order to attract Section 188 I.P.C., the ingredients are required to be proved that there must be an order promulgated by the public servant, that such public servant is lawfully empowered to formulate it, that the person with the knowledge of such order and being directed by such order to abstain from doing certain act or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management has disobeyed such direction, shall if such disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury or risk of obstruction to any person lawfully employed be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both. A reference in this regard may be made to the case of Ram Manohar Lohiya v. State of U.P. , reported in AIR 1968 Allahabad 100. 7. On perusal of the cognizance order, it transpires that in a very cryptic manner the learned court below has taken the cognizance against the petitioner. To initiate a criminal proceeding against the person, this is a very serious thing, which has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate , reported in (1998) 5 SCC 749 . Paragraph 28 of the said judgment is quoted herein below: “28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused.” 8. In view of the aforesaid facts, the impugned cognizance order is not in the parameter of Section 204 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the cognizance order dated 07.06.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Pakur in Pakuria P.S. Case No.16 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. Case No.195 of 2014, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Pakur is, hereby, quashed. 9. This criminal miscellaneous petition is, therefore, allowed and disposed of.