IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for offences punishable under Section 188 of the IPC, the Court can only take cognizance on a written complaint of the Public Servant concerned or some other Public Servant to whom he is administratively subordinate, as per Section 195 CrPC.

JUDGMENT

1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, `CrPC') praying for quashing of the order dated 08.10.2021 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate-04, Dwarka Court, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the `Metropolitan Magistrate') in Criminal Case No. 5612/2021 titled State v. Shabnam Hashmi, and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.

2. The above Criminal Case has been registered on the charge-sheet filed against the petitioner in FIR No. 0222/2020 registered at Police Station, Dwarka South, Delhi under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, `IPC'). The said FIR has been registered by the Duty Officer, Police Station Dwarka South, stating that on 03.06.2020, he was called by the SHO to his office and was told that on the social media site Twitter, a video was being played in which the petitioner and others are seen protesting. He was instructed that the same be checked and proceedings in accordance with the law be taken. The Duty Officer further states that he checked the said Tweets on Twitter and found that the same has been posted by a handle in the name of @Shabnam Hashmi on 03.06.2020 at 17:10hrs containing a video which, on local inquiry, was found to be made at DDA park near the Presidium School, Sector-06, Dwarka, New Delhi, and in which 8 to 10 people are found walking with one banner against the Citizen Amendment Act (in short, `CAA'). At the end of all these persons was the petitioner herein, found holding the banner. The petitioner stays in Sector-6 Dwarka and calls herself a social activist. The above-mentioned Twitter handle also belongs to her. It was alleged that as all these persons had violated the Prohibitory Order No. 5250-5339/R-ACP Dwarka dated 01.06.2020 issued under Section 144 of the CrPC by the Assistant Commissioner of Police (in short, `ACP') Dwarka, they have committed an offence under Section 188 of the IPC.

3. Upon investigation, a Final Report under Section 173 CrPC was filed before the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 04.05.2021. On the said charge-sheet, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance vide the Impugned Order dated 08.10.2021, which reads as under:

"I have gone through the charge-sheet and there are sufficient material on record to proceed against the accused, hence, I take cognizance of the offence committed against the accused.

Let summons be issued to the accused to be served through IO for NDOH.

List for 09.02.2022."

Submissions by the learned counsel for the petitioner

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of Section 195 CrPC, cognizance for an offence under Section 188 of the CrPC can be taken only on a complaint in writing of the Public Servant concerned or of some other Public Servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. Cognizance cannot be taken of the Final Report.

5. He submits that in the present case, the Final Report contains a document dated 24.04.2021 purporting itself to be `permission under Section 195 CrPC' issued by the ACP, Sub-Division Dwarka, New Delhi. The same, however, cannot be considered as a complaint under Section 195 CrPC and, therefore, the Impugned Order taking cognizance on the Final Report is liable to be set aside. In support, he places reliance on the judgment of this Court in Vasudev v. State, 1984 SCC OnLine Del 233; and Santokh Singh Chawla v. State NCT of Delhi, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 4773.

Submissions by the learned counsel for the respondent

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate can take cognizance not only of the Final Report, but also of the document attached thereto. In the present case, there is a document dated 24.04.2021 titled `permission under Section 195 CrPC' from the ACP filed along with the Final Report, which would satisfy the requirement of a complaint under Section 195 CrPC. He submits that cognizance has, therefor