Cognizance of specific IPC offences requires a written complaint by a public servant under Section 195, and its absence invalidates related convictions.

ORDER

The revision petitioners are the accused in a case chargesheeted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Peermedu Police Station in Crime No. 778 of 2011 for the offences under Sections 143, 144 147 188, 294(b), 341 and 332 r/w 149 IPC.

2. The trial court convicted and sentenced the accused for the offences under Sections 143 147 144 and 332 r/w 149 IPC and the appellate court dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and the sentence passed by the trial court.

3. Heard Sri. T.D. Robin, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri. Alex M. Thombra, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners argued that in the absence of a complaint in writing from the public servant as contemplated under Section 195 Cr.P.C., the conviction and sentence passed against the revision petitioners/accused is not legally sustainable. It is pointed out that the main allegation against the revision petitioners is that they disobeyed the order of PWs 1 to 3 Police Constables and attacked them and caused hurt. It is alleged that while the Police Constables were on duty near Elappara Private busstand on 24.12.2011., at about 6.45 p.m., the accused persons formed an unlawful assembly and committed the alleged overtact. Admittedly, there is no written complaint from the public servant concerned or from a public servant to whom they are subordinate as required under Section 195 Cr.P.C.

5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners argued that since the primary offence said to have been committed is one under Section 188 IPC and if cognizance is taken of the offences circumventing the mandate of Section 195 , the same is not permissible in law. In this connection, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners cited the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Devendra Kumar Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/1133/2025, wherein it was held as follows:

59. We may summarize our final conclusion as under:

(i) Section 195 (1)(a)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure bars the court from taking cognizance of any offence punishable Under Sections 172 to 188 respectively of the Indian Penal Code, unless there is a written complaint by the public servant concerned or his administrative superior, for voluntarily obstructing the public servant from discharge of his public functions. Without a complaint from the said persons, the court would lack competence to take cognizance in certain types of offences enumerated therein.

(ii) If in truth and substance, an offence falls in the category of Section 195 (1) (a)(i), it is not open to the court to undertake the exercise of splitting them up and proceeding further against the Accused for the other distinct offences disclosed in the same set of facts. However, it also cannot be laid down as a straitjacket formula that the Court, under all circumstances, cannot undertake the exercise of splitting up. It would depend upon the facts of each case, the nature of allegations and the materials on record.

(iii) Severance of distinct offences is not permissible when it would effectively circumvent the protection afforded by Section 195 (1)(a) (i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure , which requires a complaint by a public servant for certain offences against public justice. This means that if the core of the offence falls under the purview of Section 195 (1)(a)(i), it cannot be prosecuted by simply filing a general complaint for a different, but related, offence. The focus should be on whether the facts, in substance, constitute an offence requiring a public servant's complaint.

(iv) In the aforesaid context, the courts must apply twin tests. First, the courts must ascertain having regard to the nature of the allegations made in the complaint/FIR and other materials on record whether the other distinct offences not covered by Section 195 (1)(a) (i) have been invoked only with a view to evade the mandatory bar of Section 195