Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anmol Kheta, Adv. Mrs. Tanya Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Anshala Verma, Adv. Mr. Monu Kumar, Adv. Mr. Suraj Mishra, Adv. Mr. Ayush Anand, AOR Mr. K.s Jaggi, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ajay Kumar Mishra, Ag Up, Sr. Adv. Mr. Garvesh Kabra, AOR Mr. Ajay Singh, Adv. Mr. Avanish Deshpande, Adv.

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

1. Investigation of Non-Cognizable Cases: Police cannot initiate investigation into non-cognizable offences without a Magistrate’s approval, even if they receive a complaint related to such offences. For offences involving officials obstructed from discharging their duties, an additional safeguard requires a prior written complaint by a public servant before a court or Magistrate (!) .

2. Requirement of Written Complaint by Public Servant: For offences under Section 186 of the IPC related to obstruction of public servants, a written complaint by the concerned public servant before a court or Magistrate is a sine qua non for the court to take cognizance. Absence of such a complaint renders the cognizance illegal (!) (!) .

3. Distinction Between Obstruction and Assault: An act of obstruction, which falls under Section 186 of the IPC, is different from an assault or use of criminal force under Section 353 of the IPC. To invoke Section 353, there must be an actual assault or criminal force intended to deter a public servant from discharging their duties. Mere obstruction does not qualify (!) (!) .

4. Validity of the Complaint and FIR: The FIR must disclose the ingredients of the offence, including specific acts of assault or criminal force if Section 353 is invoked. In this case, the FIR only alleged creating disturbance and obstruction, without any specific acts of assault or use of criminal force, making the offence under Section 353 not made out. The absence of such allegations renders the cognizance under Section 353 invalid (!) (!) .

5. Proper Court for Filing Complaints: A complaint within the scope of the CrPC must be filed before a Judicial Magistrate, not an Executive Magistrate. The complaint filed by the District Probation Officer was addressed to an Executive Magistrate, which does not meet the legal requirement for initiating cognizance under the relevant sections (!) (!) .

6. Due Process and Jurisdiction: The initial order of cognizance was found to be contrary to law because it was based on an FIR that did not disclose a cognizable offence under the relevant sections, and the complaint was not made before a Judicial Magistrate. This procedural infirmity invalidates subsequent proceedings (!) (!) .

7. Effect of In Limine Dismissal: Dismissal of a Special Leave Petition at the threshold without detailed reasons does not establish a legal precedent or constitute a binding declaration of law. Such dismissals do not affect the merits of the case and do not prevent further legal examination (!) (!) .

8. Final Order: The court held that the proceedings initiated against the appellant under Sections 353 and 186 of the IPC were not in accordance with due process of law. Consequently, the criminal proceedings and orders of cognizance were quashed, and the impugned order was set aside (!) .

Please let me know if you need further clarification or assistance.