Gujarat HC Quashes FIR Against Two Men Accused Of Obstructing Public Servant, Citing Missing Section 195 Complaint

The applicants sought relief under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), seeking to quash an FIR registered at Karanj Police Station for offences under Sections 332, 294(b), 506(1), 506(2), 186 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

They contended that prosecution for the Section 186 IPC offence was barred because no written complaint by the concerned public servant or an administratively superior public servant had been made as required by Section 195 CrPC.

Whether the absence of a written complaint satisfying Section 195(1)(a)(i) CrPC barred prosecution for the alleged offence under Section 186 IPC.

Whether, in the circumstances, the other offences alleged in the same FIR could be severed and prosecuted notwithstanding the Section 195 bar.

Section 195(1)(a)(i) CrPC bars a court from taking cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 172–188 IPC, or their abetment, attempt or conspiracy, except on a written complaint by the public servant concerned or an administratively superior public servant.

The court relied on *Devendra Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi*, 2025 INSC 1009), which held that whether distinct offences may be severed from an offence covered by Section 195 depends on the facts, the nature of the allegations and the materials; severance is impermissible where it would circumvent the statutory protection, including where the other offences are intrinsically connected with the offence requiring a public servant’s complaint.

The court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings.

The court found that the FIR arose from routine information rather than a written complaint by the aggrieved public servant or an eligible superior, and that the State had not shown that the required complaint existed.

It concluded that, in truth and substance, the allegations’ core was obstruction of a public servant under Section 186 IPC.

Because the other alleged offences were connected to the same factual transaction, the court held that prosecuting them separately would circumvent Section 195’s safeguard; it therefore treated the prosecution’s substratum as vitiated.

It left the State or complainant at liberty to lodge a complaint in accordance with law and directed that the applicable limitation provisions—Section 473 CrPC or Section 519 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita—be considered, as relevant to the offences identified in the order.

Rule was made absolute to that extent.