Bar Under Section 195 CrPC Prevents Cognizance of Interconnected Offences Arising From Violations of Public Servant Orders

During the COVID-19 lockdown in May 2020, factory workers employed by the petitioners in Rajkot were found being transported in an Eicher container toward Uttar Pradesh

An FIR was registered at Umreth Police Station against the petitioners (factory owners) under Sections 269, 308, 188, and 417 of the IPC and Section 51(b) of the Disaster Management Act

The petitioners moved the High Court to quash the FIR, contending they had no knowledge of the transport and that the prosecution was legally barred under Section 195 of the CrPC because the proceedings originated from an FIR rather than a written complaint by a public servant

1. Whether the court could take cognizance of the FIR given the mandatory bar under Section 195(1)(a)(i) of the CrPC regarding offences under Section 188 of the IPC

2. Whether distinct offences (Sections 269, 308, 417 IPC) arising from the same transaction as the Section 188 IPC offence could be split to bypass the procedural bar

The court primarily applied Section 195(1)(a)(i) of the CrPC, which mandates that no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 of the IPC except on the written complaint of the concerned public servant

It also relied on the precedent Devendrakumar v. State of Delhi (NCT) (2025 INSC 1009), which established that if the "core" of an offence falls under Section 195, the prosecution cannot circumvent the bar by splitting the transaction into other distinct offences

The court referred to Section 2(d) of the CrPC to distinguish between a "complaint" and an "FIR"

The court observed that the allegations primarily involved a breach of a lockdown order promulgated by a public servant, squarely attracting Section 188 of the IPC

Applying the "twin tests" from Devendrakumar, the court found that the other invoked sections (269, 308, 417 IPC) were intricately connected to the violation of the lockdown order and formed part of the same transaction

The court reasoned that since the core of the matter was an offence against public justice (Section 188), allowing the FIR to proceed for other sections would effectively circumvent the protection afforded by Section 195(1)(a)(i)

Because the police filed an FIR instead of the public servant filing a written complaint before a competent court, the entire proceeding was deemed procedurally incompetent

The High Court allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 11215035200485/2020 along with all consequential proceedings against the petitioners. Rule was made absolute.