HP High Court Quashes Kalandra Against Pallavi Ramchaik for Disrupting Court, Cites Section 215 BNSS

The Himachal Pradesh High Court recently quashed criminal proceedings against a woman accused of disrupting court proceedings, ruling that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) failed to follow the mandatory procedure under Section 215 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to prevent abuse of the legal process.

Procedural Flaw Leads to Quashing

The case stemmed from an incident on February 24, 2025, when Pallavi Ramchaik allegedly entered the courtroom of the SDM, Rampur Bushahr, without permission and disrupted proceedings by raising objections. Despite being directed to leave, she continued, prompting the SDM to lodge a complaint with the police. Based on that complaint, the police registered a Kalandra under Sections 221 and 276 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and presented it before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur Bushahr.

The petitioner approached the High Court arguing that the Kalandra was invalid because the SDM bypassed the procedure mandated by Section 215 BNSS. The State supported the Kalandra , contending the procedure was proper.

What Section 215 BNSS Requires

Justice Sandeep Sharma, presiding over the single bench, examined Section 215 BNSS, which bars a court from taking cognizance of offences under Sections 206 to 223 BNS except upon a written complaint by the concerned public servant, his administrative superior, or an authorized public servant. The Court observed that the SDM, being the presiding officer at the time of the alleged disruption, should have made a complaint to the superior court or to a public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate.

Court's Reasoning

The High Court emphasized that statutory safeguards cannot be circumvented by merely changing the description of the offence. It relied on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and B.N. John v. State of U.P. , which outline the grounds for quashing criminal proceedings, including when the allegations do not constitute an offence or when there is a legal bar to prosecution.

In its key observation, the Court stated: “Since the complainant herein was presiding over the Court at the time when the alleged disruption was caused by the petitioner, he could have made a complaint in writing to the Court to which his Court is subordinate.…the complainant…ought to have made a complaint in writing either directly to the superior court or to some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate.”

The Court also noted that the police investigation and filing of the Kalandra did not follow the procedure required by Section 215 BNSS, rendering the entire proceeding invalid.

Final Verdict

Finding sufficient grounds to exercise its inherent jurisdiction, the High Court quashed the Kalandra and all consequential proceedings, discharging the petitioner. The Court held that continuing the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law and cause unnecessary harassment.

The petition was disposed of with the observation that the SDM could have taken the appropriate legal route, but the failure to do so vitiated the prosecution.