IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 21.01.2026 Harbhajan Singh ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. Rishab Bhandari, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab.

***

H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral)

1. This petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 seeking quashing of FIR No.0028 dated 01.04.2020 under Section 188 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Naya Gaon, District SAS Nagar, Punjab and all consequential proceedings out of the said FIR in view of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned FIR was unlawfully registered during the COVID-19 pandemic solely on the statement of ASI and he himself conducted the investigation in the FIR, who was not the competent public servant authorised to initiate prosecution for any alleged violation of prohibitory orders. He further submits that in view of the provisions of Section 195 of the Cr.P.C, no Court shall take of cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 172 to Section 188 except on the complaint in wiring of a public servant concerned or some other public servant who administratively empowered. Consequently, the statutory bar contained under Section 195 Cr.P.C. squarely applies, rendering the entire proceedings void ab initio. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the order of this Court in Designated Courts for MP's/MLA's vs. State of Punjab and Others passed in CWP-PIL-29-2021 and other connected cases, where similar FIRs, registered during the COVID-19 pandemic, were quashed by this Court, due to improper procedure and lack of valid evidence.

3. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. This Court is of the considered view that the FIR (supra) has been registered in violation of the mandatory legal procedure. The allegations levelled therein do not constitute any cognizable offence under the invoked provisions, particularly in the absence of compliance with the mandatory requirement under Section 195 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the FIR cannot be sustained.

4. A bare reading of Section 195(1)(a) Cr.P.C. clearly shows that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence under Section 188 IPC except upon a complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. In the absence of such a complaint, the proceedings are void ab initio.

5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M.S. Ahlawat vs. State of Haryana, (2000) 1 SCC 278, has categorically held that the provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C. are mandatory in nature, and non-compliance thereof deprives the Court of jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. The relevant extract thereof is reproduced hereunder:-

“Provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C. are mandatory and no court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of any of the offences mentioned therein unless there is a complaint in writing as required under that Section. It is settled law that every incorrect or false statement does not make it incumbent upon the court to order prosecution, but to exercise judicial discretion to order prosecution only in the larger interest of the administration of justice.”

(cid:1)(cid:2) Further, the Division Bench of this Court, while exercising suo motu jurisdiction in CWP-PIL-29 of 2021 and CWP-PIL-112 of 2023 (supra) has taken cognizance of the widespread illegal registration of FIRs under Section 188 IPC and the Epidemic Diseases Act during the COVID-19 outbreak and has quashed a large number of such cases across the States of Punjab, Haryana and U.T. Chandigarh. The relevant extract thereof is reproduced hereunder:-

“The High Court being a Constitutional Court is also required to impart complete justice. Section 482 Cr.P.C. empowers the High Court to exercise its jurisdic