Offences Under IPC Sections 172–188 Cannot Be Split To Evade Section 195 CrPC Bar: Supreme Court Clarifies
On August 20, the Supreme Court clarified that under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C., a magistrate cannot take cognizance of offences under Sections 172–188 of the IPC unless a complaint is filed by the concerned public servant. The Court further held that this bar also extends to other offences that are so intrinsically connected with these provisions that they cannot be separated or tried independently.
The Supreme Court considered a case against a Delhi police officer, reaffirming that cognizance of offences under Sections 172–188 IPC requires a written complaint from the concerned public servant or their superior, not a police report. The case arose after a process server alleged that SHO Devendra Kumar humiliated and detained him while serving summons, leading to a written complaint under Section 195 CrPC. However, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) ordered registration of an FIR under Sections 186 and 341 IPC instead of taking cognizance directly. The SHO’s challenges before higher courts failed, prompting him to approach the Supreme Court.
The bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan observed, “It is true that Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. does not bar the trial of an accused for a distinct offence disclosed by the same set of facts and is not so stated therein. Section 195 also does not provide further that if in the course of the commission of that offence, other distinct offences are committed, the court concerned is debarred from taking cognizance in respect of those offences as well. However, having said so, if the perusal of the first information report makes it clear that the offence under Section 186 of the I.P.C. is closely interconnected with another distinct offence(s), which in this case is Section 341 of the I.P.C. and it cannot be split up, then in such circumstances, the bar of Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. will apply to such other distinct offence also.
“in view of the above, the law can be summarized to the effect that there must be a complaint by the public servant who was voluntarily obstructed in the discharge of his public functions. The complaint must be in writing. The provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C. 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.” the court observed.
The Supreme Court laid down key principles on Section 195 CrPC, clarifying that courts cannot take cognizance of offences under Sections 172–188 IPC without a written complaint from the concerned public servant or their superior. It held that offences falling within this scope cannot be split to proceed under other charges unless justified by the facts of the case. The Court stressed that severance of offences cannot be used to bypass the protection of Section 195 and applied a twin test—whether additional offences were invoked only to evade the bar, and whether the core allegations essentially require a public servant’s complaint. While distinct offences may stand separately, if they are part of the same transaction, they too fall within Section 195. Importantly, police retain the power to investigate, but once investigation concludes, the bar applies, and cognizance can only be taken if the court itself files a complaint under Section 340 CrPC.
Read Here: