Case Note & Summary
The appellant, B.N. John, was the owner and manager of a hostel run by Sampoorna Development India for underprivileged children. On 03.06.2015, officials conducted a raid alleging non-compliance with the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. An FIR was lodged against the appellant and his wife under Section 353 IPC, alleging that they assaulted and attacked the officials. The appellant was arrested on 08.06.2015 and granted bail the same day. A chargesheet was filed under Sections 353 and 186 IPC, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi took cognizance and issued summons on 11.08.2015. The appellant filed an application under Section 482 CrPC before the Allahabad High Court seeking quashing of the proceedings, which was dismissed on 22.09.2023. The High Court held that a prima facie case was made out and also noted that a similar plea by the co-accused had been rejected earlier. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court examined two legal issues: (1) whether cognizance under Section 186 IPC was barred under Section 195(1)(a) CrPC for want of a written complaint by a public servant, and (2) whether the FIR disclosed ingredients of Section 353 IPC. The Court found that no written complaint by any public servant was filed, as confirmed by an RTI response, and that the FIR lacked any allegation of assault or criminal force against the appellant. Applying the principles from State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the Court held that the proceedings were barred by law and the allegations did not constitute the offences. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court order, and quashed the chargesheet, cognizance order, and all proceedings in Case No. 9790 of 2015.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of FIR - Section 482 CrPC - Principles for quashing - The court reiterated the categories of cases where FIR/complaint can be quashed as laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, including where allegations do not constitute any offence or where there is an express legal bar to the proceedings (Paras 7-8). B) Criminal Procedure - Bar on Cognizance - Section 195(1)(a) CrPC - Section 186 IPC - The court held that cognizance of an offence under Section 186 IPC can be taken only upon a written complaint by the public servant concerned. In the absence of such complaint, the proceedings are barred by law and liable to be quashed (Paras 9-12). C) Indian Penal Code - Offence under Section 353 IPC - Ingredients - The court held that to constitute an offence under Section 353 IPC, there must be an allegation of assault or use of criminal force to deter a public servant from discharging his duty. Since the FIR contained no such allegation, the proceedings under Section 353 IPC were also liable to be quashed (Paras 13-15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the criminal proceedings against the appellant under Sections 353 and 186 IPC should be quashed on the ground that (i) no written complaint by a public servant was filed as required under Section 195(1)(a) CrPC for Section 186 IPC, and (ii) the FIR does not disclose ingredients of Section 353 IPC.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 22.09.2023, and quashed the chargesheet No.162 of 2015 dated 20.06.2015, order dated 11.08.2015 taking cognizance and issuing summons, and all proceedings in Case No. 9790 of 2015 arising out of Case Crime No. 290 of 2015 under Sections 353 and 186 IPC, P.S. Cantt. District Varanasi, U.P.
Law Points
- Section 195 CrPC bars cognizance under Section 186 IPC without written complaint by public servant
- Section 353 IPC requires assault or criminal force to deter public servant
- Inherent power under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised to quash proceedings where allegations do not constitute offence or there is legal bar
