Cognizance of an offence under Section 188 IPC requires a written complaint by the public servant; police cannot register or investigate such an offence on a private complaint, and this bar cannot be circumvented by deleting the section from the charge sheet.

ORDER

Criminal Petition No.987 of 2020 has been filed challenging the chargesheet filed in C.C.No.949 of 2021 on the file of the learned I Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 143, 188, 353, 341 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, [the I.P.C] and Section 32 of the Police Act, 1861, [the Act] in Crime No.08/2020 of Suryaraopet Polic Station, Vijayawada City.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

3. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record.

4. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the learned Counsel for both the sides, now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the proceedings in C.C.No.949/2021 on the file of the learned I Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada are liable to be quashed in exercise of the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’/Section 528 of ‘the BNSS’?"

5. It is not out of place to mention that a petition was filed vide Crl.M.P.No.394/2025 in C.C.No.949/2021 on the file of the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada seeking for withdrawal of prosecution against Accused Nos.2 to 54. The learned Magistrate has allowed the petition filed under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, [the Cr.P.C] permitting the learned prosecutor concerned to withdraw the prosecution against Accused Nos.2 to 54. Petitioner is Accused No.1 in C.C.No.949/2021. Petitioner was a Member of Parliament, Rajya Sabha. The Station House Officer registered an FIR for the alleged offences punishable under Section 143, 188, 353 and 341 read with 149 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and Section 32 of ‘the Act.’ Except for the Petitioner/Accused No.1, the prosecution against all the other accused was withdrawn. This Court in Crl.P.No.1616 and 1755 of 2025, by relying on several judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court including the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bandekar Bros. (P) Ltd. v. Prasad Vassudev Keni, (2020) 20 SCC 1 and C. Muniappan v. State of T.N., (2010) 9 SCC 567 quashed the criminal proceedings. The case of the Petitioner is on similar footing. It is apposite to refer to these judgments hereunder.

6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in C. Muniappan supra at paragraph Nos.28 & 29 held as under:

“28. Section 195(1)(a)(i) CrPC bars the court from taking cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 188 IPCor abetment or attempt to commit the same, unless, there is a written complaint by the public servant concerned for contempt of his lawful order. The object of this provision is to provide for a particular procedure in a case of contempt of the lawful authority of the public servant. The court lacks competence to take cognizance in certain types of offences enumerated therein. The legislative intent behind such a provision has been that an individual should not face criminal prosecution instituted upon insufficient grounds by persons actuated by malice, ill will or frivolity of disposition and to save the time of the criminal courts being wasted by endless prosecutions. This provision has been carved out as an exception to the general rule contained under Section 190 CrPC that any person can set the law in motion by making a complaint, as it prohibits the court from taking cognizance of certain offences until and unless a complaint has been made by some particular authority or person. Other provisions in CrPC like Sections 196 and 198 do not lay down any rule of procedure, rather, they only create a bar that unless some requ