JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. All these four criminal miscellaneous petitions have arisen out of four different F.I.Rs. in which the petitioner of all the four criminal miscellaneous petitions is the accused person. 3. Cr.M.P. No. 3246 of 2022 relates to Devipur P.S. Case No. 179 of 2021 registered for the offences punishable under Section 188/171F/171G/506 of the Indian Penal Code. The Block Development Officer, Devipur, in the District of Deoghar is the informant of this case. The allegation made in this FIR is that on 11.04.2021, the petitioner being the Hon’ble Member of Parliament made a posting on twitter alleging that no action is being taken in the matter of blockade (jam) held by the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha within Madhupur Assembly Constituency Area but threatening of instituting false case is being given to BJP. The informant-Abhay Kumar being the Block Development Officer clarified in the F.I.R. that the blockade (jam) was made by unknown persons on the Devipur-Ranchi Main Road in connection of which an F.I.R. has been lodged in the local police station. The blockade (jam) was not arranged by the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha and the allegation that no F.I.R. has been registered is not true. So far as the allegation of threatening to institute false case against the BJP, it was clarified by the informant that on 08.04.2021 in several newspapers advertisement has been published in violation of the directions and conditions of the Chief Election Commissioner, hence the Hon’ble Member of Parliament has violated the Law and upon the same, Devipur P.S. Case No. 179 of 2021 has been registered. 4. Cr.M.P. No. 3090 of 2022 relates to the F.I.R. of Chitra P.S. Case No. 59 of 2021 registered for the offences punishable under Section 171C/171F/171G/182/188/504 & 505(1) of the Indian Penal Code. The same has been lodged on the written report submitted by the Block Development Officer, Sarath in the District of Deoghar. It has been alleged therein that the petitioner being the Hon’ble Member of Parliament on 18.03.2021 in his own twitter made a twit, the photocopies of which were annexed to the F.I.R. and on the oral direction of the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar to lodge the F.I.R. in accordance with law, the same has been lodged by the informant-Pallavi Sinha, Block Development Officer, Sarath in the District of Deoghar. Perusal of the twit reveals that the petitioner allegedly posted a paper cutting showing that a demonstration was done in violation of the Model Code of Conduct by the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha and commented that in the District of Deoghar despite the model code of conduct, demonstrations are being made in utter violation of the same, hence the Election Commissioner should take action against the Deputy Commissioner and other officers. On the basis of the same, Chitra P.S. Case No. 59 of 2021 has been registered alleging commission of the offences punishable under Section 171C/171F/171G/182/188/504/505(1) of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Cr.M.P. No. 3091 of 2022 relates to the F.I.R. being Madhupur P.S. Case No. 119 of 2021 registered for the offences punishable under Section 116/188/506/171F of the Indian Penal Code wherein the Block Development Officer, Madhupur in the District of Deoghar has alleged that on 15.04.2021, the twitter post was made to circulate the information amongst the voters that the person who posted the twitter post was assembled in front of the house of Dr. Irfan Ansari, the Hon’ble Member of Legislative Assembly, Jamtara for hours to contest Dr. Irfan Ansari. The provisions for food and drinks were made by the senior workers of the BJP but it was found out that Dr. Irfan Ansari was an absconder. The said posting of the petitioner- being the Hon’ble Member of Parliament, created a communal disharmony amongst the voters and an attempt was made to develop a confrontation. It is alleged that thus the Hon’ble Member of Parliament has committed the offences punishable under Section 116/188/ 506/171F of the Indian Penal Code and on the basis of the same, Madhupur P.S. Case No. 119 of 2021 was registered for the said offences. 6. Cr.M.P. No. 3100 of 2022 relates to Deoghar (Town) P.S. Case No. 527 of 2021 which has been registered for the offence punishable under Section 171F/188/506 of the Indian Penal Code. The District Public Relation Officer, Deoghar is the informant of that case. It has been alleged in the said F.I.R. that the petitioner being the Hon’ble Member of Parliament of Godda Parliamentary Constituency on 11.04.2021 from his verified twitter account made a twit alleging that Mr. Manjunath Bhaijantari, the Deputy Commissioner is involved in the Election as a worker of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha. It has been alleged in the said F.I.R. that the petitioner being the Hon’ble Member of Parliament of Godda Parliamentary Constituency on 11.04.2021 from his verified twitter account made a twit alleging that Mr. Manjunath Bhaijantari, the Deputy Commissioner is involved in the Election as a worker of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha. The petitioner also made allegation that no case was instituted against Jharkhand Mukti Morcha but for the advertisement of Godda, a threatening was given for institution of false case against BJP. Hence, the Deputy Commissioner should be removed immediately. It was opined by the informant that such posting on social media was made to put unethical pressure upon the Deputy Commissioner. It was also alleged therein that on 08.04.2021, advertisements were made in several newspapers in violation of the directions and conditions of the Chief Election Commissioner and on the basis of the same, Deoghar (Town) P.S. Case No. 527 of 2021 was registered. 7. It is submitted by Mr. Prashant Pallav, the learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Daulat Ram vs. State of Punjab, 1962 Supp. (2) SCR 812 Para-3 of which reads as under: “3. The only question in this case is whether a complaint in writing as required by S. 195 had been presented by the public servant concerned. The public servant who was moved by the appellant was undoubtedly the Tehsildar. Whether the appellant wanted the Tehsildar to take action or not, the fact remains that he moved the Tehsildar on what is stated to be a false averment of facts. He had charged Hans Raj and Kans Raj with offences under the Penal Code and he had moved his superior officer for action even though he might have stated in the letter that it was only for his information. We are prepared to assume that he expected that some action would be taken. In fact his second letter that he had compromised the matter and the proceeding might be dropped clearly shows that it anticipated some action on the part of his superior officer. The question is therefore whether under the provisions of S. 195, it was not incumbent on the Tehsildar to present a complaint in writing against the appellant and not leave the court to be moved by the police by putting in a charge-sheet. The question is therefore whether under the provisions of S. 195, it was not incumbent on the Tehsildar to present a complaint in writing against the appellant and not leave the court to be moved by the police by putting in a charge-sheet. The words of S. 1950 the Criminal Procedure Code are explicit. The section read as follows: “(1) No Court shall take cognizance: (a) of any offence punishable under Ss. 172 to 188 of the Indian Penal Code, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned, or of some other public servant to whom he is subordinate...............................................” The words of the section, namely, that the complaint has to be in writing by the public servant concerned and that no court shall take cognizance except on such a complaint clearly show that in every instance the court must be moved by the appropriate public servant. We have to decide therefore whether the Tehsildar can be said to be the public servant concerned and if he had not filed the complaint in writing, whether the police officers in filing the charge sheet had satisfied the requirements of S. 195. The words “no court shall take cognizance” have been interpreted on more than one occasion and they show that there is an absolute bar against the court taking seisin of the case except in the manner provided by the section.” (Emphasis supplied) And submits that the words “no court shall take cognizance” means that there is an absolute bar against the court taking seisin of the case except in the manner provided by the Section and submits that the public servant is expected to lodge the complaint, if there is any violation of Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code. 8. Relying upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Dharmesh Prasad Verma vs. State of Bihar, (2016) SCC Online Pat 3622, Para-17 of which reads as under: “17. The provision prescribed under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. has been carved out as an exception to the general rule contained under Section 190 of the Cr.P.C. that any person can set the law into 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. The legislative intention appears to be clear from the language of Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. which clearly prescribes that where an offence is committed under Section 188 IPC, it would be obligatory that the public servant before whom such an offence is committed, should file a complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate either orally or in writing. Hence, it would not be within the domain of the police to register a case for an offence alleged under Section 188 of the IPC and investigate the same, as registration of an FIR for an offence under Section 188 IPC is not permitted by the Cr.P.C.” It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it would not be within the domain of the police to register a case for an offence alleged under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code and investigate the same as registration of an F.I.R. for an offence punishable under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code is not permitted by the Cr.P.C. 9. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of State of U.P. vs. Mata Bhikh and Others, (1994) 4 SCC 95 , Para-16 of which reads as under: “16. Therefore, in the light of the dictum laid down in Ajaib Singh AIR 1968 SC 1422 : 1969 Cri. L.J. 4 : 70 Pun LR 1131, we are of the view that the successor in office of the public servant gets into the same position of the public servant concerned and he is in law eligible to file a complaint against wrongdoers. To say in other words, the successor in office falls within the ambit of the expression ‘public servant concerned’. The view taken by the High Court in the impugned judgment cannot be sustained and accordingly, the judgment of the High Court is set aside and the appeal is allowed.” 10. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that except the offence punishable under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code all other offences involving all the four F.I.Rs. are non-cognizable offences except Section 116 of the Indian Penal Code and whether the offence punishable under Section 116 of the Indian Penal Code, is cognizable or not depends upon the offences alleged to have been committed. are non-cognizable offences except Section 116 of the Indian Penal Code and whether the offence punishable under Section 116 of the Indian Penal Code, is cognizable or not depends upon the offences alleged to have been committed. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that none of the First Information Reports discloses as to which public order has been flouted by the petitioner and in the absence of the same, the penal provisions of the Indian Penal Code is not attracted. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the offences punishable under non-cognizable offences are also not made out on the basis of the allegations made in the four F.I.Rs. 11. Drawing attention of this Court to Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the same stipulates that when the offences are not cognizable in nature, the police is not entitled to register an F.I.R. and to investigate the matter without the order of the Magistrate, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Keshav Lal Thakur vs. State of Bihar, (1996) 11 SCC 557 . 12. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as for the same cause of action, the informants of the four F.I.Rs. who are public servants being the officers working under the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar having registered five different F.I.R. including the four F.I.Rs. in respect of which the aforesaid criminal miscellaneous petitions have been instituted goes to show that the F.I.Rs. have been lodged for wrecking vengeance upon a respectable person like the petitioner who is undisputedly the Hon’ble Member of Parliament. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceeding including the F.I.Rs. of the said four cases i.e. Devipur P.S. Case No. 179 of 2021, Chitra P.S. Case No. 59 of 2021, Madhupur P.S. Case No. 119 of 2021 & Deoghar (Town) P.S. Case No. 527 of 2021 be quashed and set aside as the continuation of the same will amount to abuse of process of law. 13. Mr. of the said four cases i.e. Devipur P.S. Case No. 179 of 2021, Chitra P.S. Case No. 59 of 2021, Madhupur P.S. Case No. 119 of 2021 & Deoghar (Town) P.S. Case No. 527 of 2021 be quashed and set aside as the continuation of the same will amount to abuse of process of law. 13. Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned G.A.-III appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for quashing the First Information Reports of the four cases and drawing attention of this Court to the Judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Amitabh Choudhary vs. State of Jharkhand and Another in Cr.M.P. No. 856 of 2019, it is submitted by the learned G.A.-III that in Para-30 of the said judgment, the coordinate Bench of this Court has expressed the view that offence punishable under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code being a cognizable offence, institution of the F.I.R. is not barred. 14. Mr. Manoj Kumar, the learned G.A.-III next relies upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Punjab vs. Raj Singh and Another, (1998) 2 SCC 391 which judgment was also relied upon by the coordinate Bench in the case of Amitabh Choudhary vs. State of Jharkhand and Another (supra) formulating such view wherein in the facts of that case, when the High Court quashed the F.I.R. lodged against respondents of that case alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 419/420/467/468 of the Indian Penal Code by them in the course of proceeding of a Civil Suit on the ground that Section 195 (1)(b)(ii) of the Cr.P.C. prohibited entertainment of the investigation into the same by police, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that Section 195 Cr.P.C. comes into operation at the stage when the Court intends to take cognizance of an offence under Section 190(1) Cr.P.C. and it has nothing to do with the statutory powers of police to investigate into the F.I.R. to discloses cognizable offences in accordance with Chapter –XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, even if the offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in court. 15. 15. It is then submitted by the learned G.A.-III, relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ashabai Machindra Adhagale vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2009) 3 SCC 789 , Para-10 of which reads as under: “10. It needs no reiteration that the FIR is not expected to be an encyclopaedia. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the appellant whether the accused belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe can be gone into when the matter is being investigated. It is to be noted that under Section 23(1) of the Act, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (in short “the Rules”) have been framed.” That F.I.R. is not expected to be an encyclopedia, in the facts of that case where the offence involved were punishable under the penal provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was alleged and for which the First Information Report was instituted without mentioning whether the accused persons belongs to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that for not mentioning the same, the F.I.R. cannot be quashed and submitted that as the investigation of the cases are going on and there is every likelihood of the petitioner having committed the cognizable offence also punishable under other penal provisions of the law apart from the offences in respect of which each of such First Information Reports has been registered will be found out during the investigation, hence at this nascent stage, the First Information Reports of each of such cases and the entire criminal proceedings ought not to be quashed and set aside. 16. Relying upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2021) SCC Online SC 315, the relevant portion of paragraph no. 80 of which reads as under: 80. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, our final conclusions on the principal/core issue, whether the High Court would be justified in passing an interim order of stay of investigation and/or “no coercive steps to be adopted” during the pendency of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr. 80 of which reads as under: 80. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, our final conclusions on the principal/core issue, whether the High Court would be justified in passing an interim order of stay of investigation and/or “no coercive steps to be adopted” during the pendency of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in what circumstances and whether the High Court would be justified in passing the order of not to arrest the accused or “no coercive steps to be adopted” during the investigation or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr. P.C. while dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing the criminal proceedings/ complaint/FIR in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, our final conclusions are as under: (i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence. (ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences. (iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on. (iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the ‘rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty). (v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint. (vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage. (vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule. (vii) xxx xxx xxx (ix) xxx xxx xxx (x) xxx xxx xxx (xviii) xxx xxx xxx It is submitted by the learned G.A.-III that police has a right under Chapter XIV of Code to investigate into a cognizable offence and the court would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences. It is then submitted that only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that court will not permit an investigation to go on. It is then submitted that only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that court will not permit an investigation to go on. It is then submitted that the power of quashing should be sparingly exercised with circumspection in the rarest of rare cases and this criminal proceeding ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage and the quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule. Hence, it is submitted that as this case does not come under rarest of rare cases, there is no justifiable reason to exercise the exceptional power of quashing the F.I.R. 17. It is then submitted by the learned G.A.-III, drawing attention of this Court to the supplementary affidavit that in respect of the offence for which Madhupur P.S. Case No. 119 of 2021 has been registered, the attached twitter posting by the petitioner shows that he assembled with so many persons in violation of the order promulgated by the Chief Secretary of the State of Jharkhand prohibiting assembling of five or more persons at a public place because of the COVID-19 Pandemic. Hence, it is submitted that there is specific allegation against the petitioner of having committed other cognizable offences also. Therefore, there is no rhyme or reason to quash the F.I.R. or the criminal proceeding of Madhupur P.S. Case No. 119 of 2021. Hence, it is submitted that these criminal miscellaneous petitions being without any merit be dismissed. 18. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to refer to Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code which reads as under: 188. Hence, it is submitted that these criminal miscellaneous petitions being without any merit be dismissed. 18. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to refer to Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code which reads as under: 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 persons 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: 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 of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. 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. The essential ingredients of the offences punishable under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code are as follows: (i) There was promulgation of an order. (ii) Such promulgation was made by a public servant. (iii) Public servant was legally empowered to make the promulgation. (iv) Promulgation directed not to do certain things or to take certain orders in connection with certain property in his possession or management. (v) Accused knew of the promulgation. (vi) Accused disobeyed it. (vii) Such disobedience caused or intended to cause obstruction, annoyance, injury or risk of the same to a person lawfully employed or caused or tender to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or caused or tender to cause riot or affray. 19. Now coming to the facts of the case, in none of the F.I.Rs. though all the four F.I.Rs. 19. Now coming to the facts of the case, in none of the F.I.Rs. though all the four F.I.Rs. were instituted by different public servants and administrative officers of considerable standing; there is any reference to any promulgation of any order which has been violated by the petitioner. The allegations made in the F.I.Rs, as already indicated above in the foregoing paragraphs of the Judgment itself goes to show that the basis for allegation of the offence punishable under Section 188 of the Cr.P.C. was the twits made in twitter handle of the petitioner; who is undisputedly an Hon’ble Member of the Parliament at the relevant point of time. There is no allegation that there was promulgation of any order for making posting in any twitter. 20. So far as the offence for which Madhupur P.S. Case No. 119 of 2021 has been registered is concerned, the supplementary counter affidavit filed by the State shows that at the relevant point of time, the Chief Secretary of the State of Jharkhand promulgated an order inter-alia prohibiting congregation of not more than five persons at any public place from 08.04.2021 to till 30.04.2021. There is no allegation in the F.I.R. of Madhupur P.S. Case No. 119 of 2021 that the photocopy of the alleged twit made by the petitioner in his twitter handle shows that the petitioner was present in any congregation at any public place where more than five persons congregated. In the absence of the same, the plain reading of the F.I.R. do not show commission of the offence punishable under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code either. Though the investigation of the case is going on for a considerable period of time and the respondent-State has taken several times and ultimately filed a supplementary counter affidavit but there is no allegation made in the supplementary counter affidavit to allege commission of any offence by the petitioner so far. 21. It is needless to mention that Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure envisages filing of a complaint in writing by the public servant concerned, the contempt of whose lawful authority has been committed or some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. 22. 21. It is needless to mention that Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure envisages filing of a complaint in writing by the public servant concerned, the contempt of whose lawful authority has been committed or some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. 22. It is pertinent to mention here that the observation was made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Punjab vs. Raj Singh and Another (supra) in respect of the offences punishable under Section 419/420/467/468 of the Indian Penal Code which were the independent penal offences and there is no bar in respect of such offences for taking cognizance by any Court, as is applicable to the offence punishable under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of which offence, Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure puts the restriction that no Court shall take cognizance inter-alia of the offence punishable under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code or of abetment to commit such an offence inter-alia 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 Court is of the considered view that the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Punjab vs. Raj Singh and Another (supra) in respect of the offences punishable under Section 419/420/467/468 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be used in respect of the offence punishable punishable under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code in view of the specific bar for taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, in Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 23. Now going by the submissions made by the learned G.A.-III, the public servant concerned, whose order promulgated has been disobeyed, is the Chief Secretary of the State of Jharkhand. Neither the Chief Secretary nor anybody to whom the Chief Secretary of State of Jharkhand is administratively subordinate has made any complaint. There is no allegation that the petitioner knew the promulgation of any order by the Chief Secretary nor is there any allegation that he disobeyed the same. Hence, under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the allegations in the F.I.Rs. There is no allegation that the petitioner knew the promulgation of any order by the Chief Secretary nor is there any allegation that he disobeyed the same. Hence, under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the allegations in the F.I.Rs. made in the four cases being Devipur P.S. Case No. 179 of 2021, Chitra P.S. Case No. 59 of 2021, Madhupur P.S. Case No. 119 of 2021 & Deoghar (Town) P.S. Case No. 527 of 2021 are considered to be true in their entirety, still no offence punishable under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. 24. So far as the offence punishable under Section 171 C, which is involved in Chitra P.S. Case No. 59 of 2021 is concerned, the same is no doubt is a non-cognizable offence. The same envisages punishment for the accused voluntarily interfering or attempt to interfere with the free electoral right. After going through the materials in the record, this Court do finds that there is no allegation against the petitioner of committing any act which could even remotely have resulted in voluntarily interfering or attempt to interfere with the free exercise of any electoral right. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that even if the allegations made in the First Information Report of Chitra P.S. Case No. 59 of 2021 are considered to be true in its entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 171C of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. 25. So far as the offence punishable under Section 171F of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the same envisages punishment for a person who commits undue influence or personation at an election. 26. Now coming to the allegations made in the F.I.Rs. being Devipur P.S. Case No. 179 of 2021, Chitra P.S. Case No. 59 of 2021, Madhupur P.S. Case No. 119 of 2021 & Deoghar (Town) P.S. Case No. 527 of 2021 which FIRs have been registered inter alia involving the offence punishable under section 171F of the Indian Penal Code, are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence of commission of undue influence or personation is not made out against the petitioner. Hence this court has no hesitation in holding that the offence under section 171F of the Indian Penal Code and not made out against the petitioner in the said three cases. 27. Hence this court has no hesitation in holding that the offence under section 171F of the Indian Penal Code and not made out against the petitioner in the said three cases. 27. So far as the offence punishable under Section 171G is concerned, the same envisages punishment for false statement in connection with an election and the ingredients of the said offence are: (i) An election was impending. (ii) The accused made a public statement relating to the personal character and conduct of the candidate. (iii) Such statement was false to the knowledge to the accused or accused believed that it was false or that he did not believe it to be true. (iv) The accused published the statement with intent to affect his result of the election. 28. Now coming to the allegations made in the F.I.Rs. of Devipur P.S. Case No. 179 of 2021 & Chitra P.S. Case No. 59 of 2021, which FIRs have been registered inter-alia involving the offence punishable under section 171G of the Indian Penal Code, are concerned, there is no allegation against the petitioner that he ever published any statement relating to personal character or conduct of any candidate of any impending election. Hence, in the absence of the same, this Court has no hesitation in holding that even if the allegations made in the F.I.Rs. of Devipur P.S. Case No. 179 of 2021 & Chitra P.S. Case No. 59 of 2021 are treated to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 171G of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner. 29. So far as the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code are concerned, it is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vikram Johar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2019) 14 SCC 207 , paragraph nos. 24 and 25 of which reads as under: “24. Now, we revert back to the allegations in the complaint against the appellant. The allegation is that the appellant with two or three other unknown persons, one of whom was holding a revolver, came to the complainant's house and abused him in filthy language and attempted to assault him and when some neighbours arrived there the appellant and the other persons accompanying him fled the spot. The allegation is that the appellant with two or three other unknown persons, one of whom was holding a revolver, came to the complainant's house and abused him in filthy language and attempted to assault him and when some neighbours arrived there the appellant and the other persons accompanying him fled the spot. The above allegation taking on its face value does not satisfy the ingredients of Sections 504 and 506 as has been enumerated by this Court in the above two judgments. The intentional insult must be of such a degree that should provoke a person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The mere allegation that the appellant came and abused the complainant does not satisfy the ingredients as laid down in Para-13 of the judgment of this Court in Fiona Shrikhande vs. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 14 SCC 44 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 715. 25. Now, reverting back to Section 506, which is offence of criminal intimidation, the principles laid down by Fiona Shrikhande vs. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 14 SCC 44 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 715 has also to be applied when question of finding out as to whether the ingredients of offence are made or not. Here, the only allegation is that the appellant abused the complainant. For proving an offence under Section 506 IPC, what are the ingredients which have to be proved by the prosecution? Ratanlal & Dhirajlal on Law of Crimes, 27th Edn. with regard to proof of offence states the following: “…The prosecution must prove: (i) That the accused threatened some person. (ii) That such threat consisted of some injury to his person, reputation or property; or to the person, reputation or property of someone in whom he was interested. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal on Law of Crimes, 27th Edn. with regard to proof of offence states the following: “…The prosecution must prove: (i) That the accused threatened some person. (ii) That such threat consisted of some injury to his person, reputation or property; or to the person, reputation or property of someone in whom he was interested. (iii) That he did so with intent to cause alarm to that person; or to cause that person to do any act which he was not legally bound to do, or omit to do any act which he was legally entitled to do as a means of avoiding the execution of such threat.” A plain reading of the allegations in the complaint does not satisfy all the ingredients as noticed above.” (Emphasis supplied) This court after going through the materials in the record and the allegations made in the F.I.R. of Chitra P.S. Case No. 59 of 2021, which FIR inter alia involves the commission of the offence punishable under section 504 of the Indian Penal Code, this Court do not find that there is any allegation against the petitioner of intentionally insulting the informant or anyone else nor there is any allegation against the petitioner of giving any provocation to informant or anyone else intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation would cause him to break public peace and in the absence of any materials regarding these essential ingredients, the offences punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code which is a non-cognizable offence is not made out, even if the allegations made in the F.I.R. of Chitra P.S. Case No. 59 of 2021 are considered to be true in its entirety. 30. So far as the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, even after going through the contents of the F.I.Rs. 30. So far as the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, even after going through the contents of the F.I.Rs. of Devipur P.S. Case No. 179 of 2021, Madhupur P.S. Case No. 119 of 2021 & Deoghar (Town) P.S. Case No. 527 of 2021, which FIRs inter-alia involves the offence punishable under section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, this Court do not find that there is any allegation against the petitioner that he threatened any person or that he did so with intent to cause alarm to the victim or to cause the victim to do any act which he was not legally bound to do or omit to do any act which he was legally entitled to do in the means of avoiding execution of such threat. Under such circumstances, the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is also not made out against the petitioner. 31. So far as the offence punishable under Section 505(1) of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the same provides for punishment for publication or circulation of any statement, rumor or report with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, fear or alarm to the public or to any section of the public, or to any section of the public whereby any person may be induced to commit an offence against the State or against the public tranquility or with intent to incite, or which is likely to incite, any class or community or persons to commit any offence against any other class or community but coming to the facts of the case, there is no allegation against the petitioner of having made any statement with intent to cause or which is likely to cause fear or alarm to public or to likely to incite any class or community or persons to commit any offence against other class or community. Hence, even if the allegations made in the F.I.R. of Chitra P.S. Case No. 59 of 2021 which FIR inter-alia involves the offence punishable under section 505 (1) of the Indian Penal Code, is considered to be true in its entirety, still in the considered opinion of this Court, the offence punishable under Section 505(1) of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner. 32. 32. So far as the offence punishable under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the same envisages the offence for false information with intent to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person. The essential ingredients of Section 182 if the Indian Penal Code which is a non-cognizable offence is that: (i) The accused gave some information to a public servant. (ii) Such information was false. (iii) The accused knew or had reasons to believe that such information was false. (iv) He did so intentionally to cause the public servant to act upon such information which the public servant would not have acted upon to the injury or annoyance of any person. 33. Now coming to the allegations made in the F.I.R. of Chitra P.S. Case No. 59 of 2021, which FIR inter alia involves the offence punishable under section 182 of the Indian Penal Code, this Court finds that there is no allegation against the petitioner of giving any information to any public servant which the petitioner knew or had reason to believe that such information was false. In the absence of such essential ingredients, the offence punishable under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out; against the petitioner, even if the contents of the FIR is considered to be true in its entirety. 34. So far as the offence punishable under Section 116 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the same intends punishment for a person who abets an offence punishable for imprisonment. Now coming to the allegations made in the F.I.R. of Madhupur P.S. Case No. 119 of 2021 which FIR inter-alia involves the offence punishable under section 116 of the Indian Penal Code, this Court finds that there is no allegation against the petitioner of abetting the commission of any offence punishable with imprisonment. 35. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even if the allegations made in the F.I.R. of Madhupur P.S. Case No. 119 of 2021 is considered to be true in its entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 116 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner. 36. In view of the discussions made above, since the offences alleged in the F.I.Rs. 36. In view of the discussions made above, since the offences alleged in the F.I.Rs. of Devipur P.S. Case No. 179 of 2021, Chitra P.S. Case No. 59 of 2021, Madhupur P.S. Case No. 119 of 2021 & Deoghar (Town) P.S. Case No. 527 of 2021 are not made out against the petitioner, even if the contents to the same are considered to be true in their entirety. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law and these are the fit cases; whereas such First Information Reports be quashed. 37. Accordingly, the F.I.Rs. of Devipur P.S. Case No. 179 of 2021, Chitra P.S. Case No. 59 of 2021, Madhupur P.S. Case No. 119 of 2021 & Deoghar (Town) P.S. Case No. 527 of 2021 are quashed and set aside. 38. In the result, these criminal miscellaneous petitions are allowed.