2025 Supreme(SC) 1230

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
Devendra Kumar – Petitioner
Versus
The State (NCT of Delhi) and Another – Respondents
Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 12373 of 2025
Decided On : 20-08-2025

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Voluntarily obstructing public servant from discharge of his public functions – Section 195(1)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C. bars court from taking cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 respectively of I.P.C. unless there is a written complaint by public servant concerned.
(2) Word ‘obstruction’ in Section 186 of I.P.C is not confined to physical obstruction only – Any act of causing impediment by unlawfully preventing public servant in discharge of his functions would be enough to attract Section 186 of I.P.C.

Headnote:

(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 195 and 340 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 186 and 341 – Voluntarily obstructing public servant from discharge of his public functions – Section 195(1)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C. bars court from taking cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 respectively of I.P.C. unless there is a written complaint by public servant concerned or his administrative superior, for voluntarily obstructing public servant from discharge of his public functions – Without a complaint from said persons, court would lack competence to take cognizance in certain types of offences enumerated therein – If in truth and substance, an offence falls in category of Section 195(1)(a)(i), it is not open to court to undertake exercise of splitting them up and proceeding further against accused for other distinct offences disclosed in same set of facts – However, it also cannot be laid down as a straitjacket formula that Court, under all circumstances, cannot undertake exercise of splitting up – It would depend upon facts of each case, nature of allegations and materials on record – Severance of distinct offences is not permissible when it would effectively circumvent protection afforded by Section 195(1)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C. which requires a complaint by a public servant for certain offences against public justice – If core of offence falls under purview of Section 195(1)(a)(i), it cannot be prosecuted by simply filing a general complaint for a different, but related, offence – Focus should be on whether facts, in substance, constitute an offence requiring a public servant’s complaint. (Paras 48, 51, 57, 58 and 59)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 195 and 340 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 186 and 341 – Voluntarily obstructing public servant from discharge of his public functions – Once investigation is completed, then embargo under Section 195 would come into play and Court would not be competent to take cognizance – However, concerned Court could then file complaint for offence mentioned in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) on the basis of F.I.R. and material collected during investigation and by following procedure laid down in Section 340 Cr.P.C. – Where accused is alleged to have committed some offences which are separate and distinct from those contained in Section 195, Section 195 will affect only offences mentioned therein – However, courts should ascertain whether such offences form an integral part and are so intrinsically connected so as to amount to offences committed as a part of same transaction, in which case other offences also would fall within ambit of Section 195 of Cr.P.C. – This would all depend on facts of each case – Sections 195(1)(b)(i)(ii) & (iii) and 340 of Cr.P.C. respectively do not control or circumscribe power of police to investigate, under Criminal Procedure Code – Once investigation is completed then embargo in Section 195 would come into play and Court would not be competent to take cognizance – However, that Court could then file complaint for offence on the basis of FIR and material collected during investigation, provided procedure laid down in Section 340 of Cr.P.C. is followed. (Paras 57, 58 and 59)

(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 195 – Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servant – Section 195 of Cr.P.C. does not bar trial of accused for a distinct offence disclosed by same set of facts – If in truth and substance, an offence falls in category of Section 195, it is not open to court to undertake exercise of splitting them up and proceeding further against accused for other distinct offences – This would depend on facts of each case – However, it cannot be laid as a straitjacket formula that Court cannot undertake exercise of splitting up – It would depend upon nature of allegations and materials on record. (Paras 36 and 38)

(D) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 186 – Voluntarily obstructing public servant from discharge of his public functions – Word ‘obstruction’ in Section 186 of I.P.C is not confined to physical obstruction only – Threats of violence made in such a way as to prevent public servant from carrying out his duty might easily amount to obstruction of public servant – It need not necessarily be an act of use of criminal force – Act need not be a violent one – It is enough if act complained of results in preventing a public servant in discharge of his lawful duties – Any act of causing impediment by unlawfully preventing public servant in discharge of his functions would be enough to attract Section 186 of I.P.C. (Paras 23, 24 and 29)

Facts of the case:

Present petition arises from the judgment and order passed by High Court of Delhi dated 12th September 2024 in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 2047 of 2013 and connected Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 18861 of 2013 by which writ petition along with the connected application came to be rejected, thereby affirming order dated 28.11.2018 passed by Chief Metropolitan Magistrate directing registration of FIR against petitioner-herein for offence punishable under Sections 186 and 341 respectively of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Findings of Court:

Procedure contemplated under sub-section (1) of Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. is limited to such cases, as are provided in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. only. Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. does not envisage a procedure with reference to an offence described in Section 195(1)(a) of the Cr.P.C. Section 195 Cr.P.C. does not have any application at the stage of investigation. Overall bar contemplated under Section 195 could be said to kick in only at the stage of cognizance.

Result : Petition disposed of with directions and observations.