The court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quashed criminal proceedings against the applicants arising under Sections 147 and 188 IPC.
Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. allowed and entire criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 2483 of 2021 quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:76434
Court No. - 12
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10155 of 2024
Applicant :- Saleem Ahmad And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajmal Khan,Ambrish Kumar Dubey,Juned Khan,Parvez Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
1. Heard.
"For the facts, reasons and circumstances stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the proceeding of Criminal Case No.- 2483/2021, State Vs Israr Ahmad and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 1051/2019, u/s 147, 188, I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali Nagar, District- Pratapgarh, pending in the Court of Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh, as well as Charge-Sheet dated 16/02/2020 and Summoning order dated 22/01/2021, in the interest of justice.
It is further prayed that proceeding of Criminal Case No.- 2483/2021, State Vs Israr Ahmad and others, arising out of Case Crime No.- 1051/2019, under section- 147, 188, I.P.C., Police StationKotwali Nagar, District- Pratapgarh, pending in the Court of Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh, may kindly be stayed during the pendency of this petition."
"Attention has been drawn towards the impugned FIR wherein the FIR has been lodged under Sections 147 & 188 IPC. Sri Javed Khan has stated that none of the ingredients of Section 147 IPC is made out against the petitioner inasmuch as Section 147 IPC clearly indicates that whoever is guilty of rioting, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine or with both. He has further submitted that offence of rioting is defined under Section 146 IPC, which provides that whenever force or violence is used by an unlawful assembly, or by any member thereof, in prosecution of the common object of such assembly, every member of such assembly is guilty of the offence of rioting. He has submitted that there is no such allegation against the petitioner and as per the allegation of the FIR, the petitioner and five named and 40-50 unknown persons were protesting during imposing of proclamation under Section 144 Cr.P.C. However, no allegations of using force or violence against public or public servant have been levelled against the petitioner.
"5. Attention has been drawn towards the judgment and order dated 18.06.2021 passed by Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition No. 13328 of 2018(GM-RES), Sri Rajashekharananda Swamiji and Another Vs. The State of Karnataka , referring para nos. 7, 8, 9,10 and 11 which read as under:
"7. As rightly pointed out, Section 188 of IPC is the main offence. The other offences flow from that. Section 195(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. bars the Court to take cognizance of such offence unless in accordance with the procedure laid down therein. Section 195(1)(a) reads as follows:
"195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence.
(1) No Court shall take cognizance-
(a)(i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860); or
(ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence; or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence,
except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate;"
"8. We agree with the view expressed by the learned Judge and hold that in cases where in the course of the same transaction an offence for which no complaint by a Court is necessary under Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and an offence for which a complaint of a Court is necessary under that sub-section, are committed, it is not possible to split up and hold that the prosecution of the accused for the offences not mentioned in Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be upheld."
(Emphasis supplied)
The impugned first information report, complaint, the charge sheet and the proceedings in C.C.No. 3660/2016 are hereby quashed."
(Emphasis supplied)
"25. Thus, in view of the above, the law can be summarized to the effect that there must be a complaint by the pubic servant whose lawful order has not been complied with. The complaint must be in writing. The provisions of Section 195 Cr.PC are mandatory. Non-compliance of it would vitiate the prosecution and all other consequential orders. The Court cannot assume the
cognizance of the case without such complaint. In the absence of such a complaint, the trial and conviction will be void ab initio being without jurisdiction."
(Emphasis supplied)
Order Date :- 20.11.2024 Jyoti/-
Digitally signed by :- JYOTI RAJWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the court can take cognizance of offences under Section 188 IPC without a written complaint by the public servant concerned.
Whether the ingredients of offence under Section 147 IPC are made out against the applicants.
Whether the criminal proceedings u/s 147 and 188 IPC and the charge-sheet are liable to be quashed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Israr Ahmad vs. State of U.P.Explained¶12
Application U/s 482 No. 1192 of 2024, Israr Ahmad vs. State of U.P.
Sri Rajashekharananda Swamiji and Another vs. The State of KarnatakaRelied on¶13
Writ Petition No. 13328 of 2018(GM-RES), Sri Rajashekharananda Swamiji and Another vs. The State of Karnataka
State of Karnataka v. HemareddyRelied on¶23
State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy [(1981) 2 SCC 185] · Who else cites this
D.K. Rajendran and Ors. vs. State of T.N.Relied on¶29
D.K. Rajendran and Ors. etc. etc. Vs. State of T.N., AIR 2010 SC 3718 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Saleem Ahmad
State of U.P.
Jyoti Rajwani
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
