Investigation of non-cognizable offences without Magistrate’s permission vitiates the charge sheet and criminal proceedings.

The applicant challenged the summoning order dated 7 August 2026, charge-sheet No. A-240/2025 dated 14 November 2025, and the criminal proceedings in Case No. 3337/2026 arising from Case Crime No. 35/2022, Police Station Ikauna, District Shrawasti.

The FIR alleged that the applicant, along with approximately 500–600 supporters, conducted election canvassing/public meetings without permission during the 2022 Assembly elections, allegedly violating the Model Code of Conduct and COVID-19 guidelines.

The FIR and charge-sheet invoked Sections 186, 269, 270 and 171H IPC, Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, and Section 51 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005.

The applicant contended that Section 171H IPC was non-cognizable, that prosecution for offences under Sections 172–188 IPC was barred absent a written complaint under Section 195(1) Cr.P.C., and that the police had investigated and filed the charge-sheet without the Magistrate’s prior permission under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C.

The State opposed the application and supported the summoning order.

Whether the FIR, police investigation, and charge-sheet were legally maintainable when the alleged offences were non-cognizable and the investigation was conducted without prior Magistrate authorization under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C.

Whether cognizance could be taken for offences falling within Sections 172–188 IPC without a written complaint by the concerned public servant, as required by Section 195(1) Cr.P.C.

Whether the allegations disclosed an offence under Section 171H IPC against the applicant, particularly when that provision applies to a person other than the election candidate who incurs unauthorized election-related expenditure.

Whether the summoning order dated 7 August 2026 was vitiated by non-application of judicial mind and failure to record reasons demonstrating sufficient grounds for proceeding.

The Court applied Section 195(1) Cr.P.C., which bars cognizance of offences under Sections 172–188 IPC except upon a written complaint by the concerned public servant or an administratively superior public servant.

Section 2(d) Cr.P.C. distinguishes a complaint from a police report, while Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. prohibits police investigation of a non-cognizable offence without prior Magistrate authorization.

Section 171H IPC penalizes unauthorized election-related expenditure incurred by a person other than the candidate.

Section 190 Cr.P.C. identifies the permissible modes of taking cognizance.

Relying on Sachida Nand Singh v. State of Bihar, Daulat Ram v. State of Punjab, and M.S. Ahlawat v. State of Haryana, the Court held that Section 195 is mandatory and must be strictly complied with.

Under State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, proceedings may be quashed where the allegations disclose no offence, investigation of a non-cognizable offence was undertaken without Magistrate authorization, or a legal bar prevents continuation of the prosecution.

The Court also relied on Lalankumar Singh v. State of Maharashtra for the rule that issuance of process is not an empty formality and requires a reasoned application of mind, and on Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal regarding the inherent power to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

The Court found that Section 171H IPC was non-cognizable and that the record did not disclose any cognizable offence enabling the police to investigate the matter without prior permission under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C.

It further held that prosecution for offences within Sections 172–188 IPC, including the offence discussed under Section 188 IPC and the alleged disobedience of public authorities, could not proceed on the basis of an FIR and police report alone; a written complaint by the competent public servant was mandatory under Section 195(1) Cr.P.C.

The Court also accepted the applicant’s argument that Section 171H IPC was inapplicable because the provision targets a person other than the election candidate, whereas the applicant was himself alleged to be the candidate or campaigner.

Consequently, the police investigation and charge-sheet were treated as jurisdictionally defective and incapable of being validated merely by the Magistrate’s subsequent acceptance of the charge-sheet or taking of cognizance.

The summoning order was additionally found deficient because it did not demonstrate the Magistrate’s application of mind or record sufficient grounds for proceeding.

Exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS, the Court allowed the application and quashed the summoning order dated 7 August 2026, charge-sheet No. A-240/2025 dated 14 November 2025, and the entire criminal proceedings in Case No. 3337/2026 arising from Case Crime No. 35/2022, insofar as they concerned the applicant.

The Senior Registrar was directed to transmit the order to the trial court for compliance.