IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Pronounced on: 20.02.2025 Reserved on: 10.02.2025 Sukhjit Singh and another ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Sukhwinder Singh Kamboj, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)

1. The petitioners have approached this Court by way of filing the present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter ‘BNSS’) for quashing of the impugned FIR bearing No.106 dated 30.05.2020 under Sections 353, 186 and 34 of IPC registered at Police Station Sadar Ahmedgarh, District Malerkotla (Annexure P-5), as well as all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and charge-sheet dated 30.08.2022.

2. The facts of the present case, tersely put, are that the petitioners constructed an unauthorized shed within the limits of Municipal Council Ahmedgarh without obtaining the necessary sanction. Since the construction of the shed was illegal, therefore on

04.09.2019, the operation to demolish the shed was initiated. However, in an attempt to obstruct the demolition work, the petitioners declared that if the operation continued, their entire family would die by suicide by consuming poison, and the officials carrying out the demolition would be held responsible. Given that official work was disrupted by the death threats extended by the petitioners, a letter was written by the Joint Deputy Director, Municipal Council, Ahmedgarh to the SHO, P.S. Sadar Ahmedgarh for taking appropriate legal action against them.

Resultantly, the FIR (supra) was registered against the petitioners.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the registration of the FIR is an abuse of the process of law, given the bar imposed by Section 195(1) of the Cr.P.C. It was argued that the trial court failed to recognize its lack of jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 186 of the IPC, as Section 195(1) of the Cr.P.C. mandates that such cognizance can only be taken upon a criminal complaint filed by the concerned department before the Magistrate. Furthermore, while Section 186 of the IPC is expressly enumerated in Section 195(1) of the Cr.P.C., Section 353 is not. However, the bar under Section 195(1) would still apply, as per the settled legal principle that it extends to cases where offences forming part of the same transaction include any of the offences mentioned therein. Learned counsel relied upon Mahendra Kumar Sonker vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024 Cri. LR SC 958; Ram Kumar vs. The State of Haryana, 1998 (1) CLR 633 and Ramji BhikhaKoli and Ors.

vs. State of Gujarat 1999 Cri.L.J, in this regard. Lastly, it was asserted that merely shouting at or threatening a person does not constitute criminal force or assault. Consequently, the essential ingredients required to invoke Section 353 of the IPC are absent in the present case. 4. Per contra, learned State Counsel submitted that on receipt of reliable information from the Joint Deputy Director, Municipal Council, Ahmedgarh, FIR (supra) was registered against the petitioners on 30.05.2020 and after the completion of the investigation, challan dated 26.04.2022 was presented against the petitioners before the st learned Judicial Magistrate 1 Class, Malerkotla and subsequently charges under Sections 183, 354 and 34 of the IPC stood framed against them vide order dated 30.08.2022.Further, learned State counsel submitted that the bar under Section 195(1) of Cr.P.C. is merely directory in nature and not mandatory.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, this Court would like to examine the necessary ingredients constituting the offences as defined under Sections186 and 353 of the IPC:

“Section 186. Obstructing public servant in discharge of publ