1. A criminal complaint was registered by police for alleged violation of a public servant's order during a public protest, resulting in charge sheet filing and cognizance by the Magistrate. (Para 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(Telangana) 2253
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J.
Konda Vishweshwar Reddy, S/o. Konda Madhava Reddy – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Telangana Rep., By its Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Telangana at Hyderabad – Respondent
Criminal Petition No.8475 of 2025
Decided On : 27-11-2025
Important Points
Cognizance of an offence under Section 188 IPC cannot be taken based on a police report, as Section 195 Cr.P.C. mandates a written complaint from the concerned public servant, and police reports are explicitly excluded from the definition of 'complaint' under Section 2(d) Cr.P.C.
Subject
Criminal Law - Quashing of Proceedings
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 188 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 2(d) and 195 - Cognizance of offence - Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant - Mandatory requirement of written complaint - Police report not equivalent to complaint - Prosecution barred if procedure under Section 195 not followed. (Paras 9, 10, 12, 13)
(B) For an offence under Section 188 IPC, the proceedings must be initiated by a written complaint from the concerned public servant or their administrative superior. A police report filed after investigation does not fall within the definition of a 'complaint' under Section 2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Paras 12, 13)
(C) To constitute an offence under Section 188 IPC, mere disobedience is insufficient; the disobedience must cause or tend to cause obstruction, annoyance, injury, or danger to human life, health or safety, or cause a riot or affray. Furthermore, the order must be promulgated openly and in public, such as through a Gazette or newspaper. (Paras 12, 15)
Facts of the case:
An FIR was registered against several individuals for participating in a hunger strike and conducting a meeting without proper permission, allegedly violating the Model Code of Conduct. The police conducted an investigation and filed a charge sheet before the Magistrate, who then took cognizance of the offence under Section 188 IPC.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the procedural mandate of Section 195 Cr.P.C. was not followed. Cognizance was based on a final report (charge sheet) rather than a written complaint from the aggrieved public servant.
Issues: Whether the court can take cognizance of an offence under Section 188 IPC based on a police report or charge sheet in view of the mandatory requirements of Section 195 Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 195 Cr.P.C. provides a specific exception to the general rule of taking cognizance, requiring a written complaint by the public servant for offences under Sections 172 to 188 IPC. Since the definition of 'complaint' under Section 2(d) specifically excludes police reports, a charge sheet cannot substitute the mandatory written complaint. Failure to follow this prescribed procedure renders the proceedings an abuse of the process of law.
Result: Criminal Petition allowed and proceedings quashed.
(B) For an offence under Section 188 IPC, the proceedings must be initiated by a written complaint from the concerned public servant or their administrative superior. A police report filed after investigation does not fall within the definition of a 'complaint' under Section 2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Paras 12, 13)
(C) To constitute an offence under Section 188 IPC, mere disobedience is insufficient; the disobedience must cause or tend to cause obstruction, annoyance, injury, or danger to human life, health or safety, or cause a riot or affray. Furthermore, the order must be promulgated openly and in public, such as through a Gazette or newspaper. (Paras 12, 15)
Facts of the case:
An FIR was registered against several individuals for participating in a hunger strike and conducting a meeting without proper permission, allegedly violating the Model Code of Conduct. The police conducted an investigation and filed a charge sheet before the Magistrate, who then took cognizance of the offence under Section 188 IPC.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the procedural mandate of Section 195 Cr.P.C. was not followed. Cognizance was based on a final report (charge sheet) rather than a written complaint from the aggrieved public servant.
Issues: Whether the court can take cognizance of an offence under Section 188 IPC based on a police report or charge sheet in view of the mandatory requirements of Section 195 Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 195 Cr.P.C. provides a specific exception to the general rule of taking cognizance, requiring a written complaint by the public servant for offences under Sections 172 to 188 IPC. Since the definition of 'complaint' under Section 2(d) specifically excludes police reports, a charge sheet cannot substitute the mandatory written complaint. Failure to follow this prescribed procedure renders the proceedings an abuse of the process of law.
Result: Criminal Petition allowed and proceedings quashed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. The petitioner contended that the trial court could not take cognizance of an offence under Section 188 IPC without a written complaint from the relevant public servant per CrPC. (Para 6 , 7 )
3. The court observed that judicial cognizance of offences under Section 188 IPC is statutorily barred unless initiated via a formal written complaint by the concerned public servant as mandated. (Para 8 , 12 , 13 , 16 )
4. A police report or final report does not constitute a valid complaint under Section 195 CrPC, mandating that the court cannot take cognizance of Section 188 IPC offences otherwise. (Para 12 , 13 )
5. The criminal petition was allowed, and the proceedings pending against the accused were quashed for failing to adhere to the mandatory procedures prescribed under Section 195 CrPC. (Para 17 , 19 )
6. Does a police report filed under Section 173 CrPC satisfy the requirement for a complaint under Section 195 CrPC to invoke Section 188 IPC?
No. Section 195 CrPC specifically requires a written complaint by the public servant concerned or their administrative subordinate. A police report is expressly excluded from the definition of a complaint under Section 2(d) CrPC, rendering a charge sheet insufficient for a Magistrate to take cognizance of a Section 188 IPC offence. (Para 9 , 10 , 12 , 13 )
7. Can a court aggregate offences and ignore the procedural bar of Section 195 CrPC when they arise from the same transaction?
If the core of the alleged offence falls under Section 195(1)(a)(i) IPC, the court cannot circumvent this mandatory procedural bar by simply filing a complaint for a different, related offence. The court must assess if the facts essentially disclose an offence requiring the public servant's authorized complaint. (Para 14 )
8. What is the limitation on police power regarding offences under Section 188 IPC?
Police cannot register an FIR or file a final report for offences under Section 188 IPC. Their role is restricted to preventive action under Section 41 CrPC, after which they must inform the authorized public servant to enable the filing of a formal written complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate. (Para 15 )
ORDER :
ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J.
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short ‘BNSS’) by petitioner/accused No.1 to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.281 of 2022 on the file of The Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for trial of Excise Cases, Manoranjan Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad.
2. Heard Mr. B.Balaji, learned counsel for petitioner/accused No.1 and Mr. E.Ganesh, Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1–State.
3. On the basis of complaint of respondent No.2 (Machineella Ram Babu, Flying Squad In-charge Team No.1, Vikarabad), an FIR bearing No.69 of 2019 came to be registered on 12.03.2023 for the offences under Section 188 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’). It is stated in the complaint that respondent No.2, while performing his duties, at 11:00 hours, came across a hunger strike being undertaken in an open place opposite to RDO office, Vikarabad, by the followers of a national party. That petitioner/accused No.1 (MP Chevalla) along with other accused (accused No.2 - Ex-MLA Pargi, accused No.3 - MLA Tandur, accused No.4 - Ex-Minister, Vikarabad, and accused No.5 – Vikarabad Congress Party Town President) participated in the hunger strike. It is further stated that as per the Model Code of Conduct, they could not have conducted such meeting, without proper permission. Hence, the complaint.
4. Complaint is said to be received on 12.03.2019 at 14:00 hours, FIR came to be registered on the very same day. Charge sheet came to be filed against accused on 24.07.2019, on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, at Vikarabad.
5. On a perusal of the charge sheet, it is observed that contents of the charge sheet are a verbatim replica of complaint, except for the statement that the acts and commission of accused persons constitutes an offence under Section 188 of IPC and a reference to LWs.2 to 4.
6. Learned counsel for petitioner/accused No.1 submitted that for an offence under Section 188 of IPC, a procedure has been prescribed under Section 195 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) and the procedure mandated under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. is not followed, as such, the offence under Section 188 of IPC cannot be said to be made out.
7. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Devendra Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another. Referring to paragraphs 41, 42 and 43, as well as the conclusions summarised therein, it is submitted that the Apex Court considered Section 195 Cr.P.C. and laid down the law. The same has not been adhered to, hence, the proceedings be quashed.
8. On a perusal of the material on record, it is observed that procedure laid out under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. has not been adhered to, charge sheet is taken on record and cognizance of the offence is taken by Judicial First Class Magistrate, at Vikarabad, for an offence under Section 188 and numbered as C.C.No.281 of 2022 on the filing of final report/charge sheet.
9. Section 195 of Cr.P.C. is as follows:
“195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence.—
(1) No Court shall take cognizance—
(a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860), or
(ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence, or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate;
(b) (i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely, sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or
(ii) of any offence described in section 463, or punishable under sectio
