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 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. P.C. 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. P.C. 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, (1971) 3 SCC 329 : AIR 1971 SC 170 8; Patel Laljibhai Somabhai v. The State of Gujarat, (1971) 2 SCC 376 : AIR 1971 SC 1935; Surjit Singh v. Balbir Singh, (1996) 3 SCC 533; State of Punjab v. Raj Singh, (1998) 2 SCC 391; K. Vengadachalam v. K.C. Palanisamy, (2005) 7 SCC 352; and Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah , (2005) 4 SCC 370 : AIR 2005 SC 2119).
