Single judge High Court quashed FIR and challan against petitioner, former CM, for breach of Section 188 IPC, holding that prosecution cannot be initiated via police report under Section 195 CrPC.
FIR No. 42 dated 18.02.2022, complaint dated 25.02.2021, and police report challan under Section 173 CrPC quashed; all further proceedings set aside.
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.
--1--
CRM-M-453-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-453-2023 Reserved on:01.12.2023 Pronounced on: 06.12.2023
Charanjit Singh @ Channi ......Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab ......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Bipan Ghai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Nikhil Ghai, Advocate Mr. Prabhdeep S. Bindra, Advocate Ms. Nalini Singh, Advocate and Mr. Amanpreet S. Pannu, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Ferry Sofat, Addl. AG, Punjab.
ANOOP CHITKARA J.
| FIR No. | Dated | Police Station | Sections |
|---|---|---|---|
| 42 | 18.02.2022 | City-1, Mansa, District Mansa | 188 IPC |
the registration of FIR captioned above, has come up before this court under section 482 CrPC for its quashing and further proceedings.
--2--
CRM-M-453-2023
contesting as MLA from Aam Aadmi Party from Mansa Constituency, gave a written complaint to the office of Chandresh Kumar Yadav, Election Observer Mansa Constitutency-96. He alleged that the petitioner-Charanjit Singh @ Channi and Shubhdeep Singh @ Sidhu Moosewala held an election rally at Mansa near Triveni Mandir and further he also held door to door campaigning in Mansa, after stipulated hours which continued after 6 pm. It is also alleged that Shubhdeep Singh @ Sidhu Moosewala, was the candidate of the Congress Party in Mansa Constituency andwas also with the petitioner. The District Election Officer forwarded this information to Deputy Commissioner Mansa, who made a complaint to Senior Superintendent of Police, Mansa and consequently, the above captioned FIR was registered against petitioner Charanjit Singh @ Channi and Shubhdeep Singh @ Sidhu Moosewala for the commission of an offence under Section 188 IPC becasue Deputy Commissioner Mansa had invoked Section 144 CrPC vide order dated 14.02.2022 and the same was in operation at the relevant time.
“It was also found that the relevant point of time vide the orders dated 14.02.2022, passed by the Deputy Commissioner Mansa, District Mansa, provision of section 144 CrPC was in-force and the election campaign shall come to an end after 06.00 PM on 14.02.2022. In the light of Chapter No.8, Section 8.2(8.2.1) of Model Code of Conduct Manual. Petitioner Charanjit Singh @ Channi along with 400/200 persons and Shubhdeep Singh @ Sidhu Moosewala, were reported to be campaigning door to door, after 6.00 pm on 14.02.2022, in the presence of F.S.T. Team of the Civil Department. As such, on the written complaint of Deputy Commissioner Mansa bearing No.252/Complaint Cell/Assembly Elections22, dated 18.02.2022, present case FIR rightly registered against the accused persons including the petitioner, on report of fact that petitioner Charanjit Singh @ Channi and Shubhdeep Singh @ Sidhu Moosewala had deliberately breached the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner Mansa and that of provisions of Model Code of Conduct, which attracts the provision of section 188 IPC.”
ANJU RANI 2023.12.07 09:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
--3--
CRM-M-453-2023
[28]. Section 195(a)(i) Cr.PC bars the court from taking cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 188 IPC or abetment or attempt to commit the same, unless, there is a written complaint by the public servant concerned for contempt of his lawful order. The object of this provision is to provide for a particular procedure in a case of contempt of the lawful authority of the public servant. The court lacks competence to take
xxx xxx
except on the complaint in writing of that Court or by such officer of the Court as that Court may authorise in writing in this behalf, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate. xxx xxx
2( d ) “complaint” means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report.
Explanation.— A report made by a police officer in a case which discloses, after investigation, thecommission of a non-cognizable offence shall be deemed to be a complaint; and the police officer by whom such report is made shall be deemed to be the complainant;
3 173. Report of police officer on completion of investigation .—( 1 ) Every investigation under this Chapter shall be completed without unnecessary delay. Xxx xxx
( 2 ) ( i ) As soon as it is completed, the officer in charge of the police station shall forward to a Magistrateempowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, a report in the form prescribed by the StateGovernment, stating—
ANJU RANI xxx xxx 2023.12.07 09:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
--4--
CRM-M-453-2023
cognizance in certain types of offences enumerated therein. The legislative intent behind such a provision has been that an individual should not face criminal prosecution instituted upon insufficient grounds by persons actuated by malice, ill-will or frivolity of disposition and to save the time of the criminal courts being wasted by endless prosecutions. This provision has been carved out as an exception to the general rule contained under Section 190 Cr.PC that any person can set the law in motion by making a complaint, as it prohibits the court from taking cognizance of certain offences until and unless a complaint has been made by some particular authority or person. Other provisions in the Cr.PC like Sections 196 and 198 do not lay down any rule of procedure, rather, they only create a bar that unless some requirements are complied with, the court shall not take cognizance of an offence described in those Sections. (vide Govind Mehta v. The State of Bihar MANU/SC/0106/1971 : AIR 1971 SC 1708; Patel Laljibhai Somabhai v. The State of Gujarat AIR 1971 SC 1935; Surjit Singh and Ors. v. Balbir Singh (1996) 3 SCC 533; State of Punjab v. Raj Singh and Anr. (1998) 2 SCC 391; K. Vengadachalam v. K.C. Palanisamy and Ors. (2005) 7 SCC 352
and Iqbal Singh Marwah and Anr. v. Meenakshi Marwah and Anr. (AIR 2005 SC 2119).
[29]. The test of whether there is evasion or non-compliance of Section 195 Cr.PC or not, is whether the facts disclose primarily and essentially an offence for which a complaint of the court or of a public servant is required. In Basir-ul-Haq and Ors. v. The State of West Bengal (AIR 1953 SC 293) and Durgacharan Naik and Ors. v. State of Orissa (AIR 1966 SC 1775), this Court held that the provisions of this Section cannot be evaded by describing the offence as one being punishable under some other sections of IPC, though in truth and substance, the offence falls in a category mentioned in Section 195 Cr.PC. Thus, cognizance of such an offence cannot be taken by mis-describing it or by putting a wrong label on it.
[30]. In M.S. Ahlawat v. State of Haryana and Anr. (AIR 2000 SC 168), this Court considered the matter at length and held as under:
...Provisions of Section 195 CrPC 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.
(Emphasis added)
[31]. In Sachida Nand Singh and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Anr. (1998) 2 SCC 493, this Court while dealing with this issue observed as under:
ANJU RANI 2023.12.07 09:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
--5--
CRM-M-453-2023
strict interpretation unless the statute or the context requires otherwise.
(Emphasis supplied)
[32]. In Daulat Ram v. State of Punjab (AIR 1962 SC 1206), this Court considered the nature of the provisions of Section 195 Cr.PC. In the said case, cognizance had been taken on the police report by the Magistrate and the appellant therein had been tried and convicted, though the concerned public servant, the Tahsildar had not filed any complaint. This Court held as under:
The cognizance of the case was therefore wrongly assumed by the court without the complaint in writing of the public servant, namely, the Tahsildar in this case. The trial was thus without jurisdiction ab initio and the conviction cannot be maintained. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the conviction of the appellant and the sentence passed on him are set aside.
(Emphasis added) [33]. Thus, in view of the above, the law can be summarized to the effect that there must be a complaint by the public 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.
10. In State of U.P. v. Mata Bhikh and Ors., (1994) 4SCC 95, Supreme Court, holds,
[6]. The object of this Section is to protect persons from being vexatiously prosecuted upon inadequate materials or insufficient grounds by person actuated by malice or illwill or frivolity of disposition at the instance of private individuals for the offences specified therein. The provisions of this Section, no doubt, are mandatory and the Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of any of the offences mentioned therein unless there is a complaint in writing of 'the public servant concerned' as required by the Section without which the trial under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code becomes void ab initio. See Daulat Ram v. State of Punjab 1962 (Supp.) 2 SCR 812.
To say in other words a written complaint by a public servant concerned is sine qua non to initiate a criminal proceeding under Section 188 of the IPC against those who, with the knowledge that an order has been promulgated by a public servant directing either 'to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order, with certain property in his possession or under his management' disobey that order. Nonetheless, when the Court in its discretion is disinclined to prosecute the wrongdoers, no private complainant can be allowed to initiate any criminal proceeding in his individual capacity as it would be clear from the reading of the Section itself which is to the effect that no Court can take cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 172 to 188 of the IPC except on the written complaint of 'the public servant concerned' or of some other public servant to whom he (the public servant who promulgated that order) is administratively subordinate. [15]. On a scrutiny of Section 195(1)(a), we are of the view that a
ANJU RANI 2023.12.07 09:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
--6--
CRM-M-453-2023
successor in office of a public servant concerned will also fall within the ambit of the expression 'public servant concerned'. Any other view contrary to it will only create difficulties in certain situations. For example, in a case where a public servant concerned promulgates a preliminary order under Section 133, 145 or 146 of the CrPC and is transferred or retires or ceases to be in office on any account before a final order is passed, would it mean that the successor who is under the law to continue the same proceeding has no right to file a complaint if the preliminary order is disobeyed. The answer would be that the successor in office can file a complaint. In every such situation, one cannot expect the superior officer to whom the public servant is administratively subordinate to file a complaint against the wrongdoers disobeying either the preliminary order or the final order promulgated by the public servant concerned.
- Cognizance of offences by Magistrates.—( 1 ) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, any Magistrate of the first class, and any Magistrate of the second class specially empowered in this behalf under sub-section ( 2 ), maytake cognizance of any offence—
( a ) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence;
( b ) upon a police report of such facts;
( c ) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed.
ANJU RANI xxx xxx 2023.12.07 09:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
--7--
CRM-M-453-2023
the mandatory provision of section 195(1) of CrPC, 1973.
(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE
06.12.2023 anju rani Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: YES.
ANJU RANI 2023.12.07 09:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the magistrate had jurisdiction to take cognizance of an offence under Section 188 IPC based on a police report under Section 173 CrPC in the absence of a written complaint by the concerned pu
Whether the proceedings initiated against the petitioner based on a police report are void ab initio for violating the mandatory provisions of Section 195 CrPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
C. Muniappan and ors. v. State of Tamil NaduExplained¶31
C. Muniappan and ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2010) 9 SCC 567 · Who else cites this
State of U.P. v. Mata Bhikh and Ors.Explained¶59
State of U.P. v. Mata Bhikh and Ors., (1994) 4SCC 95
Saloni Arora v. State of NCT of DelhiExplained¶66
Saloni Arora v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2017)3SC C 286
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Charanjit Singh @ Channi
State of Punjab
Anoop Chitkara
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
