IMPORTANT POINT
Cognizance of offences under Section 186 IPC requires a written complaint from the public servant, failing which the order is void ab initio.

JUDGMENT :

1. This Petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking the quashing of FIR No. 187/2019 dated 13.06.2019 registered at PS Kotla Mubarakpur under Sections 186, 353 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, “IPC”) and Section 33 of the Delhi Excise Act, 2009 and setting aside the Impugned Order, dated 12.01.2022 passed by the Saket District Courts, New Delhi.

2. The facts in brief are:

a. On 13.06.2019 on the direction of the Deputy Commissioner a team of the Delhi Excise Department raided the premises of a restaurant cum bar named “DA Code”, which was a unit of Level Entertainment & Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. situated at F-39, 3rd floor, South Extension-1, New Delhi, at around 1:35 AM.

During the entry of the raiding team the restaurant staff tried to obstruct them in discharge of their official duties and shifted the liquor stock from the bar counters to a room on the terrace of the restaurant. The lock of the terrace room was broken by the Excise Department officials at around 5:05 AM, in the presence of all Excise Inspectors and the local Police. From the said room, 52 bottles of non-duty paid alcohol were recovered and seized. It is pertinent to mention that while the officials were counting the bottles and making inventory, the Petitioner is stated to have created hinderance/obstruction in the work of the officials by persistently asking the officials to be allowed to leave the premises. A case, vide FIR No.187/2019, was registered at the behest of the Excise Inspector against the accused, including the Petitioner, with regard to the sale of non-duty paid alcohol.

b. A Chargesheet was filed on 11.06.2021 under Section 186, 353, and 34 of the IPC as well as Section 33 of the Delhi Excise Act, wherein, the role of the Petitioner has been highlighted. It is mentioned that the Petitioner created hurdles in the work of the Investigating Officers and was continuously asking the officers to leave the premises, on the grounds that he had just come for dinner and was a working professional. The Chargesheet further indicated that the Petitioner was a silent partner of another accused, Sahil, and used to help him run the establishment “DA Code” as a shadow partner.

c. On 12.01.2022, vide the Impugned Order, the Trial Court took cognizance of the offences, including Section 186 of the IPC, mentioned in the Chargesheet and issued summons to the accused, including the Petitioner. This Order, the FIR No.187/2019, and both the Chargesheet and Supplementary Chargesheet are under challenge in the present Petition.

d. It is pertinent to mention that a Status Report has been filed, on 15.02.2023, wherein the role of the Petitioner has been described as one where he was simply a customer and was obstructing the officials while they were carrying out their work.

3. Notice was issued. Written Submission has been filed by the Petitioner.

4. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that no offence has been disclosed against the Petitioner, and that the Petitioner has been dragged into this criminal proceeding maliciously. He further adds that the record, as filed by the Prosecution, shows glaring irregularities with regard to the positions taken by the investigative agency apropos the role of the Petitioner and points out that the position is riddled with contradictions.

5. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the Trial Court has erred in taking cognizance of the offence under Section 186 of the IPC. He adds that the Impugned Order passed by the Trial Court lacks application of mind and is a violation of the mandate laid down under Section 195 of the CrPC. He states that cognizance of an offence under Section 186 of the IPC has been taken devoid of a written complaint, that is a mandatory requirement under Section 195 of the CrPC and incompliance of which will render the whole process of taking cognizance as void ab inito.

6. The Learned APP appearing for the State, mentions that the Status Repor