- (1.) The instant application has been preferred by the complainant-petitioner against the order dated 06. 09. 2002, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Chatra in Criminal Revision No. 125 of 1999, whereby the revision application filed by the opposite party No. 2 has been allowed and the order taking cognizance taken against the O. P. No. 2 dated 24. 07. 1999 has been set aside.
(2.) The brief facts of the case is that a proceedings u/s 144 Cr. P. C was initiated on 18. 09. 1998 on the application of the petitioner- Md. Habib Mian. Notice to the O. P. No. 2 herein was issued on the very same day and parties were directed not to go upon the disputed land as well as they were restrained from doing anything upon the same. It appears that the petitioner- Md. Habib Mian filed an application on 21. 9. 98 before O. P. No. 3 alleging therein, inter alia that the O. P. No. 2- Bakar Ali has violated the prohibitory order & prayed for proceeding u/s 188 I. P. C against him. Thereafter, a report was called from the Anchal Adhikari Simeria, who submitted the report against which show cause was filed by the O. P. No. 2. Ld. Sub-Divisional Magistrate being not satisfied with the show cause filed a complaint petition in the court of C. J. M, Chatra. Ld. C. J. M accordingly took cognizance for an offence punishable u/s 188 I. P. C against O. P. No. 2. The O. P. No. 2 challenged the aforesaid order of cognizance on 3 grounds: (a) Notice under Section 144 Cr. P. C was issued in his absence and the same was not served upon O. P. No. 2. Report of the process server mentioned on the back of the notice clearly shows that notice was not served upon him. (b) Report of the Anchal Adhikari was called in the absence of the O. P. No. 2. (c) The S. D. M, Chatra has filed a petition of complaint but no where he has stated that such disobedience has caused or tends to cause any obstruction, annoyance or injury to any person lawfully employed nor it is stated that such disobedience caused or tends to cause damage to human life.
(3.) The learned trial court after hearing both the parties allowed the revision application filed by the O. P. No. 2 on the ground that the complaint of an offence punishable under Section 188 IPC must disclose that the disobedience of the order led to the consequence narrated under Section 188 IPC otherwise no cognizance can be taken on such complaint. The learned trial court further held that neither there was any promulgation of an order in proper manner nor the alleged accused/revisionist (O. P. No. 2) had any knowledge about the same, and set aside the order taking cognizance against the O. P. No. 2.;