LexDEVENDRA KUMAR versus THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1095 : 2025 INSC 1009 Devendra Kumar v. The State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 12373 of 2025) 20 August 2025 [J.B. Pardiwala* and R. Mahadevan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration High Court affirmed the order passed by the CMM directing registration of the FIR against the petitioner for offences punishable u/ss.186 and 341, Penal Code, 1860. Whether the CMM erred in involving the police in a complaint lodged by a Civil Judge for the offence punishable u/ss.186 and 341 of the I.P.C; whether the CMM erred in asking the police to investigate the complaint u/s.156(3) of the Cr.P.C instead of taking cognizance upon the complaint and issuing process to the petitioner; scope of s.195, CrPC. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.195 – Scope – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.186, 341 – Petitioner-SHO allegedly misbehaved with/detained the Respondent no.2-Process Server when he visited the police station and insisted for receipt of summons – Respondent no.2 brought alleged misconduct on part of the petitioner to the notice of the District & Sessions Judge in the form of voluntary obstruction said to have been caused in the discharge of his public functions, who in turn assigned the complaint to the Administrative Civil Judge who then lodged a private complaint in the court of the CMM – However, the CMM instead of taking cognizance upon the said complaint and issuing process to the petitioner, directed registration of FIR u/ss.186, 341, IPC – Order challenged by the petitioner before Sessions Judge, rejected – High Court affirmed the order passed by the CMM – Challenge to: Held: 1.1 The word ‘obstruction’ in s.186 of the I.P.C is not confined to physical obstruction only – Threats of violence made in such a way as to prevent the public servant from carrying out his duty might easily amount to an obstruction of the public servant – The * Author 1096 [2025] 8 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports expression ‘obstruction’ used in s.186 of the I.P.C. is not confined to physical obstruction – It need not necessarily be an act of use of criminal force – The act need not be a violent one – It is enough if the act complained of results in preventing a public servant in discharge of his lawful duties – Any act of causing impediment by unlawfully preventing public servant in discharge of his functions would be enough to attract s.186 of the I.P.C. [Paras 24, 29] 1.2 Petitioner’s acts prima facie, amount to obstructing the public servant in the discharge of their public function – Therefore, the complaint itself, does not suffer from any legal infirmity – However, the CMM should have straightaway taken cognizance upon the complaint and issued process to the petitioner – Asking the police to investigate the complaint u/s.156(3) of the Cr.P.C. was a very serious error committed by the CMM – There was no need to involve the police in a complaint lodged by a Civil Judge for the offence punishable u/ss.186 and 341 of the I.P.C. [Paras 30, 12] 1.3 s.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 – s.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 u/s.186 of the I.P.C. is closely interconnected with another distinct offence(s), which in this case is s.341 of the I.P.C. and it cannot be split up, then in such circumstances, the bar of s.195 of the Cr.P.C. will apply to such other distinct offence also. [Para 36] 1.4 s.195(1)(a)(i), Cr.P.C. bars the court from taking cognizance of any offence punishable u/ss.172 to 188 respectively of the I.P.C., unless there is a written complaint by the public servant concerned or his administrative superior, for voluntarily obstructing the public servant from discharge of his public functions – Without a complaint from the said persons, the court would lack competence to take cognizance in certain types of offences enumerated therein. [Para 59] 1.5 If in truth and substance, an offence falls in the category of s.195(1)(a)(i), it is not open to the court to undertake the exercise of splitting them up and proceeding further against the accused for th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.