Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 6612
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MILIND RAMESH PHADKE, J
MUKESH KUMAR SHAKYA – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH – Respondent
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 38735 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Amit Lahoti
For the Respondents: Shri Samar Ghuraiya
A public servant cannot be prosecuted for disobedience under Section 199 of BNS when actions are taken in good faith while waiting for document verification.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528 - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Section 199 - Challenge to cognizance taken by magistrate for disobedience by a public servant; the petitioner diligently sought verification of documents before taking action. (Paras 1-11)
(B) Public Servant’s Obligations - Duty to comply with court directions; failure to meet procedural requirements does not automatically constitute disobedience. Proper judicial caution must be exercised in taking cognizance under Section 199. (Paras 10-15)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a police officer, challenged an order taking cognizance under Section 199 for delay in FIR registration due to verifications of documents containing conflicting age dates of the prosecutrix.
Findings of Court:
The order of cognizance is quashed and set aside, with the court finding no willful disobedience or malintent by the petitioner.
Issues: Whether the petitioner’s actions constituted willful disobedience of court directives warranting prosecution under Section 199 of BNS?
Ratio Decidendi: A public servant awaiting verification of documents cannot be criminally liable under Section 199 without clear evidence of mens rea or deliberate disobedience.
Result: Petition allowed; impugned order quashed and proceedings dropped.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the case including petitioner and conflicting documents. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments from both sides regarding compliance and investigation. (Para 4 , 6) |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE th ON THE 11 OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 38735 of 2025 MUKESH KUMAR SHAKYA Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:
Shri Amit Lahoti - Advocate for applicant.
Shri Samar Ghuraiya - Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
ORDER This petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as " BNS S ") has been filed by the petitioner challenging the legality and propriety of the order dated 11.08.2025, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhind in UNCR No.484/2025, whereby the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 199 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as " BNS ") against the present petitioner.
2. In brief, the fact of the case are that the petitioner is serving as Station House Officer, Police Station Dehat, District Bhind. An FIR (Crime No.500/2024) FIR was registered under Sections 137, 64, 87 of BNS and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act. The investigation was carried out by Sub- Inspector Smt. Ratna Jain, and after its completion, the petitioner, in his Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA official capacity as SHO, filed the charge-sheet before the Special Court, Bind (Special Case No.19/2024). Along with the charge-sheet, three documents regarding the age of the prosecutrix were submitted, each reflecting a different date of birth:
a) 08.04.2007 – as per letter dated 24.09.2024 issued by Head Master, Sadhna Vidhya Niketan.
b) 05.07.2005 – as per certificate dated 14.10.2024 issued by Secretary, New Shrikrishna Shiksha Evam Samaj Kalyan Samiti.
c) 09.04.2005 – as per record of District Hospital, Bhind.
3. The trial court, noticing contradictions, by letter dated
21.03.2021 observed that two of the documents appeared prima facie forged and directed the petitioner to register an FIR. A reminder was also sent on 13.03.2025. In compliance, the petitioner made correspondence to the concerned institutions (school authorities, Samiti, and District Hospital Bhind) seeking verification. Since replies were awaited, the FIR was not immediately registered. Instead, the trial court directed a court personnel to file a private complaint against the petitioner, and on that basis the learned JMFC, Bhind, issued notice. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply explaining the steps already taken. Despite this, the learned JMFC, by order dated 11.08.2025, took cognizance against the petitioner under Section 199 of the BNS .
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has throughout acted diligently and addressed multiple communications to the concerned authorities to verify the authenticity of the disputed documents.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA Even the Superintendent of Police, Bhind, confirmed that the matter was not kept pending deliberately, but verification was essential to ascertain the genuineness of the documents. Section 199 BNS is wrongly invoked because the petitioner never disobeyed any law or court direction knowingly or willfully. Delay in registration of FIR, while awaiting institutional verification, does not amount to disobedience. In fact, FIR was subsequently registered bearing Crime No. 492/2025 under section 318(2), 336(3) of BNS on 19.08.2025 against unknown persons. Therefore, the cognizance order suffers from non-application of mind and is liable to be set aside.
5. It is further submitted that if three documents exist showing different dates of birth, the issue of authenticity is a matter for trial. The prosecution can lead evidence by examining the concerned officials who issued the documents, and the defence will get opportunity for cross- examination. At this
