Criminal proceedings initiated under Sections 353 and 186 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, were quashed due to the absence of a written complaint by a public servant as mandated under Section 195(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Mere obstruction does not constitute criminal force or assault – No prima facie case under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was made out.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 – Quashing of criminal proceedings: An FIR was filed under Sections 353 and 186 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, against the appellant for allegedly obstructing public servants from discharging official duties. The High Court dismissed the plea for quashing under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Supreme Court held that taking cognizance under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was illegal due to the absence of a written complaint from a public servant before the Magistrate as required under Section 195(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – It was further held that the allegations in the FIR did not disclose the use of criminal force or assault, thereby failing to attract Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Criminal proceedings quashed.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 353 and 186 – Absence of essential ingredients: For an offence under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the presence of criminal force or assault is a necessary ingredient – Mere obstruction or disturbance does not amount to criminal force – The FIR and subsequent investigation lacked material evidence to sustain charges under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Proceedings quashed.

Judicial Precedents – State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335 – Applicability: The Supreme Court reiterated the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, wherein it was held that where the allegations in the FIR do not disclose a prima facie case or make out a cognizable offence, the FIR is liable to be quashed – The present case falls within the categories specified for quashing proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 195(1)(a), Section 482, Section 161
• Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 353, Section 186
• Right to Information Act, 2005 – Application filed to ascertain the absence of a complaint

Subjects:

Quashing of Proceedings – Criminal Force – Assault – Obstruction of Public Servant – Prima Facie Case – Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Written Complaint – Judicial Magistrate – Cognizable and Non-Cognizable Offences – Abuse of Process – Due Process – Public Servant Complaint – Section 195(1)(a) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Facts:

1. Nature of the Litigation:

The appellant, B. N. John, sought quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against him under Sections 353 and 186 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, on the grounds that no prima facie case was made out.

2. Who is Asking the Court and for What Remedy?

The appellant approached the Supreme Court seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated against him before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

3. Reason for Filing the Case:

The appellant was accused of obstructing public servants while they conducted a raid on a hostel managed by him. It was alleged that the appellant and his wife created disturbances and attacked officials, leading to the registration of an FIR. The appellant challenged the proceedings on the following grounds:

• No written complaint was filed by a public servant before the Magistrate as required under Section 195(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
• No prima facie case under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was made out as there was no evidence of criminal force or assault.

4. What Has Already Been Decided Until Now?

• The Allahabad High Court dismissed the plea for quashing the criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
• The Supreme Court examined whether the FIR disclosed a prima facie case and whether procedural safeguards under Section 195(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, were followed.

Issues:

a. Whether the FIR disclosed a prima facie case under Sections 353 and 186 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
b. Whether cognizance under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was valid in the absence of a written complaint from a public servant as required under Section 195(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
c. Whether the High Court erred in rejecting the plea for quashing the criminal proceedings.

Submissions/Arguments:

Appellant:

• Cognizance under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was illegal as no written complaint from a public servant was filed before the Magistrate, violating Section 195(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
• The FIR did not disclose any allegations of criminal force or assault, which are essential ingredients for an offence under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• The case was an abuse of process and should be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Respondent (State of Uttar Pradesh):

• The High Court had rightly dismissed the plea, as the FIR and witness statements suggested a prima facie case.
• The Supreme Court should not interfere with a well-reasoned order of the High Court.

Decision:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the criminal proceedings on the following grounds:
a. Illegality in Cognizance Under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 – The Court held that since no written complaint was filed by a public servant before the Magistrate, as mandated by Section 195(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, taking cognizance under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was illegal.
b. Absence of Prima Facie Case Under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 – The FIR did not disclose any allegations of criminal force or assault. Mere obstruction does not amount to an offence under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
c. Application of Bhajan Lal Case Principles – The case fell within the categories where FIRs can be quashed under State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court:

• Quashed Case No. 9790 of 2015 under Sections 353 and 186 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi.
• Set aside the order of the Allahabad High Court dated 22.09.2023.

Ratio:

1. Compliance with Section 195(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is mandatory before taking cognizance of an offence under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. Mere obstruction does not amount to criminal force or assault under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. Criminal proceedings can be quashed if they do not disclose a prima facie case and amount to abuse of process.