This Supreme Court judgment clarifies that for offences under Section 186 IPC, a written complaint by the concerned public servant or their superior is mandatory under Section 195(1)(a) CrPC before a court can take cognizance. However, the bar under Section 195 CrPC applies only at the stage of cognizance and does not prohibit the police from investigating such offences. The court also held that “obstruction” under Section 186 IPC is not limited to physical force but includes any act that impedes a public servant’s duties. The legality of splitting distinct offences from those covered by Section 195 depends on the facts of each case.
Facts Of The Case:
A Process Server from the Nazarat Branch of the Shahdara courts was assigned to serve a warrant and a summons at the Nand Nagri police station on October 3, 2013. Upon arrival, he faced significant obstruction from the police staff. A constable initially accepted the documents but signed using a different officer’s name, and when confronted, cut out the signature. The Reader of the SHO and the Duty Officer both refused to accept the judicial processes. The matter was escalated to the Station House Officer (SHO), Inspector Devender Kumar (the petitioner). Instead of facilitating the service, the SHO allegedly abused the Process Server, forced him to stand with his hands raised for half an hour as punishment, and then made him sit on the floor for three to four hours. The Process Server pleaded to be released to perform his other duties but was unlawfully confined until a Head Constable finally accepted the documents around 4:30 PM. The incident was reported to the District and Sessions Judge, leading to a formal complaint under Section 195 CrPC by the Administrative Civil Judge to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM), who directed the registration of an FIR under Sections 186 (obstructing a public servant) and 341 (wrongful restraint) of the Indian Penal Code. This order was upheld by the revisional court and the High Court, leading to the present Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court.
Procedural History:
The procedural history began with the Administrative Civil Judge, on the direction of the District and Sessions Judge, filing a written complaint under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM). The CMM, instead of taking cognizance directly, invoked Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and ordered the registration of an FIR and an investigation by a senior police officer. The petitioner challenged this order before the Sessions Court through a criminal revision application, which was dismissed. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court, which also upheld the CMM’s order, leading to the filing of the present Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, while disposing of the petition, critiqued the CMM’s procedural error of directing a police investigation instead of taking direct cognizance on the judicial complaint.
READ ALSO:Supreme Court’s Balancing Act in UAPA Bail Appeals :Trial Delay vs. Terror Charges
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court made several key observations, primarily critiquing the procedural path taken. It held that the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) committed a “serious error” by ordering a police investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Instead, upon receiving a valid complaint under Section 195(1)(a) of the Cr.P.C. from a public servant (the Administrative Civil Judge), the CMM ought to have taken direct cognizance and issued process to the accused. The Court clarified that the bar under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. operates only at the stage of cognizance and does not prevent the police from investigating an offence. On the substantive law, the Court authoritatively interpreted the word “obstruction” under Section 186 of the IPC, ruling it is not confined to physical force or violence but includes any act that prevents or makes it more difficult for a public servant to discharge their duties.
Case Details:
Case Title: Devendra Kumar vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Citation: 2025 INSC 1009 Criminal Appeal No.: Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 12373 of 2025 Date of Judgement: 20th August, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
Download The Judgement Here