J UDGMENT : Kaushik Goswami, J. Heard Mr. O.P. Bhati, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S. H. Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent. 2. By way of this criminal petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the petitioner is seeking quashing of FIR dated 23.09.2013 filed by the Circle Officer, Hajo Revenue Circle, which was registered as Hajo PS Case No.366/2013 registered under Section 188/420/34 of IPC. 3. The brief facts of the case is that on 23.09.2013, the Circle Officer, Hajo Revenue Circle, Hajo lodged an FIR alleging inter-alia, that the petitioner in respect of land measuring 1 Bigha 2 Katha 10 Lecha covered by Dag No.289 of K.P.Patta No.278, changed the use of the land from agricultural to industrial purposes. Accordingly the FIR was registered as Hajo PS Case No.366/2013. 4 . Situated thus, the present criminal petition has been filed. 5. Mr. O.P. Bhati, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegations set out in the FIR even if they are taken to be correct, does not constitute any criminal offence whatsoever. He therefore submits that the registration of the aforesaid FIR under Section 188/420/34 of IPC by the Police Official is totally without application of mind. He accordingly submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case the FIR warrants to be quashed by this Court. 6. Per contra, Ms. S.H. Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent submits that it is apparent reading of the averments set out in the FIR that it is alleged by the Circle Officer that the petitioner has changed the use of the subject land from agricultural purpose to non-agricultural purpose and hence the FIR in question ought not be quashed by this Court. 7. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the contending parties and have perused the material available on record. I have also considered the case law cited at the bar. 8. Apt to reproduce the FIR at the outset:- ‘Govt. Of Assam Office Of The Circle Officer ‘ Hajo Revenue Circle No. HCM (E) 5/2013/1862 Date: 23/09/2013 To The Officer Incharge, Hajo Police Station, Kamrup, Assam, Sub: F.I.R. against illegal use of land in violation of submission made in affidavit. Ref: 1. Govt Letter No. RSS 605/2013/36 Dtd. 17/09/13 2. KRM-8/2010/100 Dtd. Of Assam Office Of The Circle Officer ‘ Hajo Revenue Circle No. HCM (E) 5/2013/1862 Date: 23/09/2013 To The Officer Incharge, Hajo Police Station, Kamrup, Assam, Sub: F.I.R. against illegal use of land in violation of submission made in affidavit. Ref: 1. Govt Letter No. RSS 605/2013/36 Dtd. 17/09/13 2. KRM-8/2010/100 Dtd. 21/09/13 Sir, With reference to the subject and The Govt. Order referred to above,I am to request you to take action under appropriate provision of law against the below- mentioned pattadars who could be treated as offenders for violating the specific declaration made by them in the affidavits submitted by them at the time of obtaining NOC from Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup for purchase of agricultural class of land that they would use the same only for agricultural purpose. 1.Shri Arun Gupta and Shri Varun Gupta both s/o Shri Bisham Gupta, residents of 2 nd floor, Shanti Sadan Building, Near Badri Das Public School, Narayan Nagar, kumarpara, Guwahati(Metro)- 781009 The above mentioned land-holders have erected boundary wall around their agricultural class plot of land, thereby attempting to change the use of land. Schedule of Land: 1 Bigha 2 Katha 10 Lesa covered by dag no. 8 of K.P.Patta No.116 situated at Revenue Village Borgaon under Mouza Pub-Bongsor under Hajo Revenue Circle, kamrup, Assam. Encl: Copy Of The Affidavit. 2.Shri Sanjay Kumar Tulsyan, Aged About 35 Yrs,s/o Sri Promod Kumar Tulsyan, residents of Das Auto Bazar, Rly Gate No.5, Kedar Road, Ghy.-1 The above mentioned pattadar has already constructed boundary walls, factory in the agricultural plot of land, thereby thoroughly changing the nature of use of land. Schedule of Land: 1 Bigha 2 Katha 10 Lesa covered by Dag No. 289 of K.P. Patta No.278 of Revenue Village Pacharia Dolar Pathar under Mouza Pub-Bongsar in Hajo Revenue Circle, Kamrup, Assam. Encl:Copy of the affidavit. It is to be mentioned that the mere fact that the land has been lying agriculturally unused for a long time or such excuses does not allow the land holder to use the purchased land for non-agricultural purpose until proposal for reclassification to appropriate class is not accorded approval by the Deputy Commissioner as per Executive Direction 6 of The Assam Land Revenue Regulation, 1886. Submitted for favour of your necessary action. Circle Officer Hajo Revenue Circle Kamrup, Assam.’ 9. Submitted for favour of your necessary action. Circle Officer Hajo Revenue Circle Kamrup, Assam.’ 9. Reading of the aforesaid FIR, it appears that the allegation is that the petitioner has changed the use of subject land from agricultural to industrial purpose. It appears that based on such allegation, the jurisdictional Investigating Officer registered the said FIR under Section 188/420/34 of IPC. It is further apparent that no ingredient of fraudulent or dishonest intention has been made in the FIR. That being so, no case of cheating is made out against the petitioner. 10. This brings me to the next offence i.e. Section 188 of IPC, which is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:- ‘ 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 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 trends 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. 11. It appears that to constitute an offence under Section 188, the disobedience is to be such that it causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to a person lawfully employed and also 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. 12. 12. In the present case except that the petitioner has changed the use of the subject land, there is nothing more. Mere change of use of the subject land is not sufficient to constitute an offence under Section 188 of IPC. To attract an criminal offence, criminality must be set out in the averments made in the FIR. 13. That being lacking, I am of the unhesitant view that the instant FIR cannot be allowed to proceed. Hence, the FIR dated 23.09.2013 is hereby quashed. 14. Resultantly, the criminal petition stands disposed off.