SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Guj) 1045

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J.
Krupalbhai Nikunjbhai Desai - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Gujarat - Respondent
Criminal Misc. Application (For Quashing & Set Aside Fir/Order) No. 16693 of 2019
Decided On : 15-02-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Kalrav R Patel, Ms. Nili K Patel
For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor

An FIR for offences under IPC Section 186 cannot be registered without a written complaint from the public servant, as mandated by Section 195(1)(a)(i) of CrPC.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 186 - Quashing of FIR - The petitioner sought to quash an FIR for obstructing a public servant, arguing that no FIR can be registered without a complaint from the public servant as mandated by Section 195(1)(a)(i) of CrPC - The court found that the FIR and subsequent proceedings were unsustainable due to the lack of a proper complaint - The definition of 'complaint' under Section 2(d) of CrPC was discussed, emphasizing that a police report does not suffice for cognizance of the offence - The court ruled that the order of taking cognizance was contrary to the law and thus quashed the FIR and proceedings. (Paras 1-9)

(B) Cognizance of Offences - The court reiterated that cognizance of offences under certain sections of IPC requires a written complaint from the concerned public servant, and any proceedings initiated without such a complaint are liable to be quashed. (Paras 5-8)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was accused of obstructing a police constable in the performance of his duties by not removing parked vehicles in front of his house, leading to an FIR under Section 186 of IPC.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the FIR and subsequent charge-sheet were invalid as they did not comply with the requirements of Section 195(1)(a)(i) of CrPC.

Issues: The main issue was whether an FIR could be registered for an offence under Section 186 of IPC without a complaint from the public servant.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the FIR was invalid as it was not based on a complaint from the public servant, as required by law, and thus the proceedings were quashed.

Result: The application is allowed; the FIR and criminal proceedings are quashed.

JUDGMENT :

1. By way of filing this Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner seeks quash of the FIR in Crime Register No.II-3117 of 2019 registered with Ellise Bridge Police Station, Ahmedabad, for the offence punishable under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner, and the proceedings in Criminal Case No.52397 of 2019 on the file of learned Metropolitan Magistrate Court No.22, Ahmedabad.

2. Heard Mr.I.H.Saiyed, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Maithili Mehta, learned APP for the respondent-State.

3. The facts of the prosecution case lie in a narrow compass and may be stated as follows:-

3.1 The defacto complainant is a public servant working as a constable in Ellise Bridge Police Station, Ahmedabad. On the date of the alleged offence, he found that some vehicles are parked in front of the house of the petitioner. When the constable has requested the petitioner to remove the said vehicles, which are parked in front of his house, it is stated that the petitioner has shouted at the constable and thereby obstructed him in discharge of his public functions.

3.2 The constable has lodged a report with the Ellise Bridge Police Station, which was registered as an FIR against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code. The case was investigated and eventually, after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed by the police against the petitioner in Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Ahmedabad. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the said offence against the petitioner and issued summons against him in Criminal Case No.52397 of 2019.

4. The petitioner sought quash of the said FIR and the criminal prosecution launched against him in Criminal Case No.52397 of 2019 on the file of learned Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Ahmedabad, on the ground that no FIR can be registered on the basis of the report lodged by any public servant for the offences punishable under Section 186 of IPC and the Court also cannot take cognizance of the said offence against the petitioner without there being a complaint filed by the public servant in the concerned Court, as required under Section 195 (1) (a) (i) of CrPC.

5. This Court finds considerable force in the said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 195 (1) (a) (i) of CrPC clearly mandates that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 of IPC except on the complaint in writing of the said public servant or some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate.

6. Complaint is defined in Section 2 (d) of CrPC and it reads thus:-

    “Complaint” means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report.

    Explanation of Section 2 (d) says that the report made by a police officer in a case which discloses, after investigation, the commission of a non-cognizable offence shall be deemed to be complaint; and the police officer by whom such report is made shall be deemed to be the complainant.

6.1 Explanation to Section 2 (d) has no application in the facts of the present case. It applies only when police initiates investigation in a cognizable offence but ultimately founds that only a non-cognizable offence has been made out. The said law is enunciated by the Apex court in the judgment rendered in the case of Keshav Lal Thakur vs. State of Bihar reported in (1996) 11 SCC 557.

7. In view of the definition of complaint under Section 2 (d) of CrPC, it is the police constable, who has to file a complaint, before the concerned Magistrate and the Magistrate is competent to take cognizance of the said offence only on the complaint made by the police constable. A bar is clearly engrafted to take cognizance of offence for the offence punishable under Sec

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top