Back
1 MCRC Nos.32779/20, 22907/20, 31816/20, 31827/20, 31933/20,
36823/20, 37695/20, 39757/20, 29043/20 & 39474/20
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT INDORE
1
Case No.
MCRC Nos.32779/20, 22907/20, 31816/20, 31827/20,
31933/20, 36823/20, 37695/20, 39757/20, 29043/20 &
39474/20.
2
Parties Name
Zaid Pathan and others Vs. State of M.P.
3
Date of Judgment
22/12/2020
4
Bench constituted of
Hon’ble Shri Justice Prakash Shrivastava
5
Judgment delivered by
Hon’ble Shri Justice Prakash Shrivastava
6
Whether approved for
reporting
Yes
7
Name of counsels for
parties.
Shri Pratyush Mishra, learned counsel for the
petitioners in MCRC No.32779/20.
Shri Anshuman Shrivastava, learned counsel
for the petitioners in MCRC Nos.22907/20, 31816/20,
31827/20 & 31933/20.
Shri S.A. Warsi, learned counsel for the
petitioners in MCRC Nos.36823/20, 37695/20 &
39757/20.
Shri Neeraj Kumar Soni, learned counsel for the
petitioner in MCRC No.29043/20.
Shri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the
petitioner in MCRC No.39474/20.
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Addl. A.G.
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Addl. A.G.
with Shri Aniruddha Gokhale, learned counsel for the
with Shri Aniruddha Gokhale, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.
respondent/State.
8
Law laid down
Section 195(1) Cr.P.C. is attracted at the stage of
taking cognizance. There is no bar under Section 195
of the Cr.P.C. in respect of registration of FIR,
therefore, FIR for an offence under Section 188 of the
IPC can be registered by the police and after
investigation on the basis of the FIR and the material
collected during the course of investigation, a
competent public servant can file the complaint before
the concerned court. What is barred under Section 195
of the Cr.P.C. is that after investigating the offence
under Section 188 of the IPC, the police officer cannot
file a final report in the Court and the Court cannot take
cognizance on that final report, as at that stage the bar
contained in Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. comes into
operation.
9
Significant
paragraph
numbers
8 to 23
(Prakash Shrivastava)
Judge
Judge
2 MCRC Nos.32779/20, 22907/20, 31816/20, 31827/20, 31933/20,
36823/20, 37695/20, 39757/20, 29043/20 & 39474/20
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT INDORE
(SB: HON. SHRI JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA)
MCRC No.32779/2020
Zaid Pathan and others Vs. State of M.P.
MCRC No.22907/2020
Mukesh Yadav Vs. State of M.P.
MCRC No.29043/2020
Dinesh Dubey Vs. State of M.P.
MCRC No.31816/2020
Vinay and others Vs. State of M.P.
MCRC No.31827/2020
Vinay Bakliwal Vs. State of M.P.
MCRC No.31933/2020
Vinay Bakliwa Vs. State of M.P.
MCRC No.36823/2020
Divik Mukati Vs. State of M.P.
MCRC No.37695/2020
Mohd. Maqsud Chauhan Vs. State of M.P.
MCRC No.39474/2020
Salman Vs. State of M.P.
MCRC No.39757/2020
Mohd. Anees Khan Vs. State of M.P.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Pratyush Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners in
MCRC No.32779/20.
Shri Anshuman Shrivastava, learned counsel for the
petitioners in MCRC Nos.22907/20, 31816/20, 31827/20 &
31933/20.
Shri S.A. Warsi, learned counsel for the petitioners in
MCRC Nos.36823/20, 37695/20 & 39757/20.
Shri Neeraj Kumar Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner
in MCRC No.29043/20.
Shri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner in
MCRC No.39474/20.
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Addl. A.G. with Shri
Aniruddha Gokhale, learned counsel for the respondent/State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether approved for reporting : YES
3 MCRC Nos.32779/20, 22907/20, 31816/20, 31827/20, 31933/20,
36823/20, 37695/20, 39757/20, 29043/20 & 39474/20
(Passed on 22/12/2020)
1/
This order will govern the disposal of MCRC
Nos.32779/20, 22907/20, 31816/20, 31827/20, 31933/20,
36823/20, 37695/20, 39757/20, 29043/20 & 39474/20 as it is
jointly submitted by counsel for the parties that all these
MCRCs involve the same issue on the identical fact situation.
2/
These MCRCs have been filed for quashing the
FIR registered by the police for offence under Section 188 of
the IPC.
3/
For convenience the facts are noted from MCRC
No.32779/20.
4/
This MCRC has been filed under Section 482 of
the Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No.5/2020 registered at
Police Station Sarafa, Indore. FIR has been registered
against the petitioners for commission of offence under
Section 188 & 34 of the IPC with the allegation that on
15.1.2020 the petitioners had staged a demonstration against
CAA and NRC without giving any intimation or taking prior
permission from the competent authority, whereas the District
Magistrate in order to maintain peace and tranquillity had
issued the order No./2322/R.A.D.M./2019, and Order
No./2323/R.A.D.M./2019 dated 10.12.2019 prohibiting any
demonstration, procession, public meeting etc. in any place
without permission. It is further alleged that in addition to the
petitioners, there were other 200 persons who had violated
the order of the District Magistrate and, therefore, committed
the offence under Section 188 of the IPC.
4 MCRC Nos.32779/20, 22907/20, 31816/20, 31827/20, 31933/20,
5/
The submission of learned counsel for the
petitioners is that in terms of Section 195(1)(a)(i) there is a
bar for taking cognizance of offence under Section 188 of the
IPC and for that purpose a complaint under Section 200 of
the Cr.P.C. is required to be filed and FIR cannot be
registered. They further submit that for registering the FIR
obstruction, annoyance, injury or threat to life and safety is
necessary and that the order of the District Magistrate was
not communicated to the petitioners. They further submit that
right of demonstration is a fundamental right. In support of
their submission they have relied upon the judgment of the
Bombay High Court
dated 23.2.2017 in Criminal
Application No.6265/2016 (Shrinath Gangadhar Giram Vs.
State of Maharashtra and Another), judgment of Madras
High Court dated 20.9.2018 in Criminal OP No.1356/2018
and connected petitions in the case of Jeevanandham
and others Vs. State and Another, as also the judgment of
the Madras High Court in Criminal OP No.9487/2020 dated
26.6.2020 in the case of Shamsul Huda Bakavi Vs. State
reported in 2020 SCC Online Mad 1298, judgment of the
Supreme Court in the matter of Anita Thakur and others Vs.
Government of Jammu and Kashmir and others reported
in (2016) 15 SCC 525, the judgment of coordinate Bench of
this Court
dated 2.11.2020 passed in M.Cr.C.
No.44006/2019 in the case of Gopal Bhargava Vs. State of
M.P. and the judgment of this Court in the case of State of
M.P. and Another Vs. Jyotiraditya Scindia dated 7/2/2014
passed in W.A. No.888/2013 and the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the matter of C. Muniappan and others
Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2010) 9 SCC 567.
5 MCRC Nos.32779/20, 22907/20, 31816/20, 31827/20, 31933/20,
6/
Learned counsel for the State has opposed the
petition and has submitted that there is no bar under Section
195 of the Cr.P.C. in registering the FIR for offence under
Section 188 of the IPC and the bar under Section 195 comes
into operation at the stage of taking cognizance. He has
further submitted that the offence under Section 188 of the
IPC is a cognizable offence and in the State of M.P. it is non
bailable offence, therefore, the police officer is competent to
register the FIR. In support of his submission he has placed
reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the
matter of State of Punjab Vs Raj Singh and Another
reported in 1998 (2) SCC 391, in the matter of M.
Nar
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
