The Tripura High Court at Agartala Bench has clarified that although an FIR and police investigation in relation to an offence under Section 186 IPC may proceed, the court cannot take cognizance of such offence unless the complaint before the court, within the meaning of Section 195(1)(a)(i) CrPC read with Section 2(d) CrPC, is made by the public servant concerned or by a public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. Where the charge-sheet/police report is laid and forwarded by officers who are neither the victim public servant nor his superior, the statutory requirement is not satisfied, and cognizance is barred.
The Court however held that a subsequent petition under Section 482 CrPC is maintainable where the earlier petition had been filed by a co-accused and related to a different stage and different relief, and therefore such earlier proceedings do not bar the present challenge to cognizance and summons.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice S. Datta Purkayastha observed that the present petition was maintainable even though an earlier petition had been filed by a co-accused. The Bench noted that the earlier challenge was by another accused and was directed against registration of FIR and related investigation steps, whereas the present petition specifically challenged the later order taking cognizance and the summons issued to the present petitioner. The Bench therefore held that the nature of challenge was different and the present petitioner was not barred from invoking Section 482 CrPC.
On the merits, the Bench emphasized that Section 186 IPC is a non-cognizable offence and that Section 195(1)(a)(i) CrPC bars the court from taking cognizance of offences under Sections 172 to 188 IPC except on a complaint in writing by the public servant concerned or a public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. The Bench also relied on the definition of “complaint” under Section 2(d) CrPC and its explanation, under which, in a non-cognizable case, the police report is deemed to be a complaint and the police officer by whom such report is made is deemed to be the complainant.
The Bench then examined who had actually laid and forwarded the charge-sheet. It found that the charge-sheet was laid by S.I. Samaresh Chakma and forwarded by S.I. Lalzuithara Darlong, and that neither of them was the victim officer nor a superior officer to Inspector Manoranjan Debbarma, who was the public servant allegedly obstructed. On that factual position, the Bench held that the victim public servant or his superior had not submitted the complaint before the Court, and therefore the bar under Section 195 CrPC operated against cognizance.
Accordingly, the High Court held that the order dated February 17, 2022 taking cognizance under Sections 186/34 IPC and the subsequent orders issuing summons were bad in law and liable to be quashed.
Briefly, the case arose out of events of August 08, 2021 recorded in the GDEs of Khowai Police Station. According to the GDE entries, when leaders and supporters of the All India Trinamool Congress reached Dhalabil Chowmuhani on August 07, 2021, unknown miscreants allegedly pelted stones at their vehicles, following which the police moved the group to safer locations, and later 14 TMC leaders/supporters were arrested in connection with a case under Section 188 IPC and Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897.
Thereafter certain TMC leaders, including the present petitioner, allegedly entered or remained at Khowai Police Station, discussed the arrest with the police authorities, misbehaved with the Addl. S.P. and SDPO, shouted inside the chamber of the O/C, and allegedly obstructed police officers from forwarding the arrested persons to court in time. On that basis, the then O/C, Manoranjan Debbarma, lodged a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate seeking registration of a case against the petitioner and others under Sections 186/34 IPC, alleging obstruction in discharge of official duty.
The Chief Judicial Magistrate permitted investigation under Section 155 CrPC, whereupon Khowai P.S. FIR under Sections 186/34 IPC was registered. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted by the investigating officer, S.I. Samaresh Chakma, and forwarded by the in-charge O/C, S.I. Lalzuithara Darlong. Cognizance was thereafter taken on February 17, 2022, and summons were issued to the petitioner. The petitioner is challenging this cognizance order and subsequent summons on the ground of the statutory bar under Section 195 CrPC.
Appearances:
Advocates Sankar Lodh and Agnish Basu, for the Petitioner
Advocate Raju Datta, For the Respondent
