Point of Law : Prosecution under Section 186 IPC is governed by provisions of Section 195 of Cr.P.C. wherein it is provided that no Court shall take cognizance of offence punishable under Section 186 IPC, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom the said public servant is admistratively subordinate.

JUDGMENT :

The instant petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.PC’), has been filed by petitioner for quashing of final report in Case No. 356/3 of 2020, proceeding initiated in pursuance thereto and summoning order dated 11.12.2020 issued therein, pending adjudication before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasauli, District Solan, H.P.

2. Status report stands filed giving details of the case.

3. Petitioner is an accused in case No. 356/3 of 2020, titled as State of H.P. Vs. Tirtha Nand instituted on the basis of Kalandra presented by SHO Police Station, Parwanoo, District Solan, H.P., alleging therein that petitioner Tirtha Nand had misbehaved with Sub Divisional Police Officer/Deputy Superintendent of Police (SDPO), Parwanoo in a meeting held on 27.8.2020 conducted for discussing and managing law and order in Apple Market, Parwanoo.

4. Complaint has been filed against the petitioner under Section 186 of IPC. Prosecution under Section 186 IPC is governed by provisions of Section 195 of Cr.P.C. wherein it is provided that no Court shall take cognizance of offence punishable under Section 186 IPC, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom the said public servant is admistratively subordinate. These provisions are mandatory and non-compliance thereof is fatal for prosecution.

5. In present case, it is admitted fact that complaint has been filed by SHO Police Station, Parwanoo and there is no in writing complaint made either by SDPO Parwanoo or any other Officer of higher rank to him.

6. In view of non-compliance of provisions of Section 195 of Cr.P.C. prosecution of the petitioner in case 356/3 of 2020 is not sustainable and accordingly, it is quashed. Resultantly, consequential proceeding, including impugned order dated 11.12.2020 are also quashed.

7. Petition stands disposed of in above terms.

8. Petitioner is permitted to produce a copy of this judgment, downloaded from the web-page of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, before the authorities concerned, and the said authorities shall not insist for production of a certified copy but if required, may verify it from Website of the High Court.