The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to statutory complaint requirements under Section 215 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for proceeding with criminal charges.

Court made the following: ORDER: ;

The criminal petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.23 of 2025 dated 12.06.2025 of Ramagiri Police Station, registered for the alleged offences under Sections 221 , 223, 224, 292, 126(2), 196(1), 132, 351(3), 61(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS ’),.

2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was not present at the scene of alleged offence at the t time of the commission. Section 215 of ‘the BNS S.,’ DiVER, J Crl.P.No.6201 of 2025 Dated 24.06.2025 bars the prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants for. offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in ~ evidence. Section 215 of ‘the BNS S.,’ mandates that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 206 to 223 of ‘the BNS ’.

3. In this Case, the report has been lodged by a police constable. There is no complaint in writing given to the Court having jurisdiction as mandated under Section 215 of ‘the BNSS’. ’ t

4. The case was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 221 , 222 and 223 of ‘the BNS ..,’ including other sections. These three sections are contemplated under Section 215 of ‘the BNS S’ as a bar for taking cognizance.

5. A learned Single Judge of this Court in Kantamaneni Ravishankar v. State of Andhra Pradesh , 2020 SCC OnLine AP 726 at para No.86 held as under:

"86... Therefore, to register a crime against a person, who disobeyed the ordinance, there must be a complaint from public servant about the disobedience of ordinance. Hence, the very registration of crime for the offence punishable under Section 188 of I.P.C. is contrary to the settled law laid down by the Apex Court and other High Courts (referred supra) and the police officer is incompetent to register a crime for the offence punishable under Section 188 of I.P.C. on the complaint of any other person other than a public servant and any other person, who is authorized by public servant. Consequently, registration of crime against the petitioner is vitiated by irregularity.”

6. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bandekar Brothers Private Limited Vv. Prasad Vassudev Keni, (2020) 20 SCC 1 at para No.48 held as under: :

“48. Equally important to remember is that if in the course of ' the same transaction two separate offences are made out, for a one of which Section 195 CrPC is not attracted, and it is not possible to split them up, the drill of Section 195(1)(b) CrPC must be followed. Thus, in State of Karnataka’ v. Hemareddy, (1981) 2 SCC 185: 1981 SCC (Cri) 395 this. Court referred to a judgment of the Madras High Court (V.V.L. Narasimhamurthy. In, V.V.L. Narasimhamurthy v. State, 1953 SCC OnLine Mad 236 : AIR 1955 Mad 237) and approved its ratio as follows: (Hemareddy case®, SCC pp.190-91, paras 7- 8)

"7...In the third case, Somasundaram, J., has observed: ‘(V.V.L Narasimhamurthy case*, SCC OnLine Mad) ‘The main point on which Mr Jayarama Ayyar appearing for the petitioner seeks to quash this committal is that on the facts an offence under Section 193 IPC is disclosed for which the court cannot 9 take cognizance without a complaint by the court as provided under Section 195(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The first question which arises for consideration oF is whether on the facts mentioned in the complaint, an “ offence under Section 193 IPC is revealed. Section 193 reads as follows:

"193. Punishment for false evidence: Whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any stage. of a judicial proceeding, or fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judici