SURESH SHARMA vs STATE OF HP - 2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2777

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 174-A and 21 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 82 and 195(1)(a)(i) - Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528 - Cognizance of offense under Section 174-A IPC - Requirement of written complaint - The court cannot take cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 of IPC except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or some other person to whom he is administratively subordinate (Paras 7, 9).

(B) Nature of Complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C. - A written communication from a Judge to the police, even if phrased as a direction to lodge an FIR rather than a request, is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of a written complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C. (Paras 7, 9, 12).

(C) Scope of Section 195 Cr.P.C. - Section 174-A IPC, being situated between Sections 172 and 188 IPC, falls within the scope of Section 195(1)(a) Cr.P.C. The cognizable nature of the offense does not exclude it from the mandatory procedural requirement of a written complaint by the court to initiate prosecution (Paras 10, 11).

Facts of the case:
Following matrimonial discord, the petitioner failed to pay maintenance granted by a court. During execution proceedings, the petitioner was proceeded against ex parte. After a conditional warrant of arrest was returned unexecuted, the court issued a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. Despite service of a proclamation via affixation at the petitioner's residence, the Gram Panchayat, and the court complex, the petitioner failed to appear and was declared a proclaimed offender. Consequently, the presiding officer of the court sent a written communication to the police directing the registration of an FIR under Section 174-A IPC.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the written communication sent by the presiding officer to the police constituted a valid complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C. It held that Section 174-A IPC is covered by the procedural mandate of Section 195 Cr.P.C., and the act of the Judge in communicating the facts of the proclamation and the offender's status to the police satisfies the legal requirement for taking cognizance.

Issues: Whether the registration of an FIR under Section 174-A IPC, initiated by a court's direction to the police via written communication, complies with the mandatory requirement of a written complaint by a public servant under Section 195 Cr.P.C.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 195(1)(a)(i) of the Cr.P.C. mandates a written complaint by the public servant concerned for offenses under Sections 172 to 188 IPC. As Section 21 IPC includes Judges within the definition of "public servant," a written communication from a Judge to the police reporting that an individual has been declared a proclaimed offender satisfies this requirement. The fact that the communication was worded as a direction to lodge the FIR rather than a request does not invalidate its status as a written complaint.

Result: Present petition fails and is dismissed accordingly.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Quashing of FIR under Section 174-A IPC for failure to appear despite Section 82 CrPC proclamation in maintenance execution proceedings. (Para 1 , 2 )

2. Petitioner argued FIR not based on written complaint under Section 195 CrPC; respondent argued written complaint was made. (Para 5 , 6 )

3. Petition dismissed; court held Section 195 CrPC applicable and written complaint existed. (Para 13 )

4. Does Section 195 CrPC apply to Section 174-A IPC?

Yes, Section 174-A falls within Sections 172-188 IPC, so Section 195 requires a written complaint by the public servant. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 )

5. Can an FIR under Section 174-A be registered based on a judge's written communication that 'directs' the police to register a case?

Yes, the written communication from the judge to the police, even if worded as a direction, constitutes a complaint under Section 195 CrPC. (Para 7 , 8 , 12 )

6. Does the cognizable nature of Section 174-A exclude it from the purview of Section 195 CrPC?

No, cognizability does not exclude it from Section 195; the legislature did not correspondingly amend Section 195 when adding Section 174-A. (Para 10 , 11 )

Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

1. By way of instant petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita , prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR No.97 of 2022, dated 22.04.2022, under Section 174-A of IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, as well as consequent proceedings pending adjudication before competent Court of law.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings as well as other material adduced on record by the respective parties are that marriage inter se petitioner and one Smt. Sushma was solemnized in the year 2006. However, on account of matrimonial discord, they started living separately w.e.f year 2009. Subsequently, the above named Smt. Sushma filed pPetition for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C, which was registered as Petition No.19 of 2013. In afore proceedings, Court below granted monthly maintenance of Rs.2,000/- to the wife and Rs.1,000/- to the child, payable by the petitioner. Since opetitioner herein failed to pay monthly maintenance, above na med lady initiated execution proceedings under Section 125 (3) Cr.P.C., registered as Cr.M.A. No.624 of 2015, titled as Sushma Devi Vs. Suresh Kumar, which are pending adjudiocation before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate CCourt No.1, Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh. In the afore proceedings, petitioner was proceeded against ex parte on 26.07.2016 and ultimately, vide order dated 19.04.2021, letter was issued to the collector with request to give the details about the iimmovable property in the name of the petitioner. At the time of passing of order dated 31.08.2021, wife of the petitioner stated on oath that petitioner has no movable or immovable property in his name. She also stated that the land and house which were earlier in her name, had already been sold out by the petitioner. Vide order dated 31.08.2021, petitioner was served with a conditional warrant of arrest and in case of failure to do so, it was directed that petitioner be arrested and produced in the Court on 27.10.2021 (Annexure P-1). However, afore warrant of arrest was returned unexecuted with a report from the mother of the petitioner that petitioner was not residing at the given address for a long time and his present whPereabouts were unknown. Subsequently, vide same order, Court below directed that petitioner be served through proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C for appearance on 17.01.2022 (Annexur e P-2). As per report dated 08.04.2022, the serving officer aopprised court below that one copy of proclamation was affixed a t the house of the petitioner on 13.12.2021, the second copy was affixed on the notice board of Gram Panchayat Malag in the presence of one Bimla Devi and third copy was affixed on the onotice board of the Court complex on 14.12.2021. Since despiCte such service by way of proclamation, the petitioner failed to appear before the Court below, learned Court below directed the concerned SHO to register an FIR under Section 174-A of Indian Penal Code against the petitioner (Annexure P-3).

3. Pursuant to afore order dated 08.04.2022 passed by the Court below, SHO of Police Station Sadar, Hamirpur, registered impugned FIR No.97 dated 22.04.2022 under Section 174-A of Indian Penal Code.

4. After completion of investigation, Police has already presented challan in the Court of learned ACJM, Court No.1, Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, against the accused, but before the same could be taken to its logical end, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, for quashing of FIR as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending adjudication in the competent court of law. P

5. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Varun Thakur, learned Legal Aid Counsel representing th e petitioner, is that impugned action of lodging an FIR oagainst the petitioner under Section 174-A of Indian

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2777

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA
SURESH SHARMA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HP – Respondent
CRMMO/749/2025

Cognizance of an offense under Section 174-A IPC requires a written complaint by the concerned public servant or court under Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C. A written communication from a Magistrate to the police to register an FIR satisfies this requirement, even if phrased as a direction.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. Does Section 195 CrPC apply to Section 174-A IPC?

5. Can an FIR under Section 174-A be registered based on a judge's written communication that 'directs' the police to register a case?

6. Does the cognizable nature of Section 174-A exclude it from the purview of Section 195 CrPC?

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2777

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLAHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMASURESH SHARMA – AppellantVersusSTATE OF HP – RespondentCRMMO/749/2025

Cognizance of an offense under Section 174-A IPC requires a written complaint by the concerned public servant or court under Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C. A written communication from a Magistrate to the police to register an FIR satisfies this requirement, even if phrased as a direction.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. Does Section 195 CrPC apply to Section 174-A IPC?

5. Can an FIR under Section 174-A be registered based on a judge's written communication that 'directs' the police to register a case?

6. Does the cognizable nature of Section 174-A exclude it from the purview of Section 195 CrPC?

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA
SURESH SHARMA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HP – Respondent
CRMMO/749/2025