MP HC Quashes FIR Against Class 12 Student Over Protest Against FIR Targeting Tribal Members, Citing No Written Complaint From District Magistrate

In brief

The question

Whether cognizance of the offence under Section 223 BNS could be taken without the written complaint required by Section 215 BNSS

The court held

The Court held that cognizance of the Section 223 BNS offence was barred in the absence of the written complaint required by Section 215 BNSS, and that the connected Section 126(2) charge could not be maintained on the facts found.

It also directed

It allowed the petition and quashed the cognizance order dated 16 December 2024, the FIR in Crime No. 198/2024, and the resultant charge-sheet.

01Facts

Following a protest at Palsud Police Station on 6 July 2024 against an earlier FIR involving members of the tribal community, police registered Crime No. 198/2024 against seven persons, including the petitioner, alleging disobedience of a District Magistrate’s order under Section 144 CrPC, punishable under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

¶ 2

The police later added Section 126(2) BNS, alleging that the gathering obstructed police personnel.

¶ 2

The Magistrate took cognizance of both offences on 16 December 2024.

¶ 2

The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR, charge-sheet and cognizance order, contending, among other things, that the written complaint required by Section 215 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) had not been made and that the material did not establish obstruction.

¶ 2–4

02Issues

i.Whether cognizance of the offence under Section 223 BNS could be taken without the written complaint required by Section 215 BNSS

¶ 4(a), 8–10

ii.Whether the Section 215 BNSS bar also applied to the connected charge under Section 126(2) BNS because the alleged offences formed part of the same transaction

¶ 4(b), 11–13

iii.Whether the material, including the spot map, disclosed the ingredients of an offence under Section 126(2) BNS

¶ 4(c), 11, 14–15

03Law Applied

Section 215(1)(a) BNSS bars a court from taking cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 206–223 BNS, except on a written complaint by the public servant concerned, an administrative superior, or an authorised public servant.

¶ 9–10

Applying Devendra Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 INSC 1009, the Court stated that a distinct offence not itself covered by the complaint requirement may also fall within the bar where it is intrinsically connected with, and forms part of the same transaction as, an offence covered by the provision; whether offences can be severed depends on the facts and substance of the allegations.

¶ 12

The bar concerns cognizance, not the police’s power to register or investigate an offence.

¶ 12

Provisions in the judgment · 67 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 193 Section 215

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 36 provisions

Section 126 Section 206 Section 207 Section 208 Section 210 Section 211 Section 212 Section 213 Section 214 Section 215 Section 216 Section 217 Section 218 Section 219 Section 220 Section 221 Section 222 Section 223 Section 229 Section 230 Section 231 Section 232 Section 233 Section 236 Section 237 Section 242 Section 243 Section 244 Section 245 Section 246 Section 247 Section 248 Section 267 Section 336 Section 340 Section 342

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 9 provisions

Section 144 Section 173 Section 190 Section 195 Section 196 Section 197 Section 198 Section 199 Section 340

Indian Penal Code, 1860 20 provisions

Section 172 Section 173 Section 174 Section 175 Section 176 Section 177 Section 178 Section 179 Section 180 Section 181 Section 182 Section 183 Section 184 Section 185 Section 186 Section 187 Section 188 Section 341 Section 467 Section 471

04Reasoning

The FIR alleged disobedience of the District Magistrate’s order under Section 223 BNS, but there was no written complaint by the District Magistrate or another public servant authorised under Section 215 BNSS; the Station House Officer had instead registered the case himself.

¶ 8–10

The Court found that the alleged procession, gathering and obstruction were part of one transaction, so the Section 126(2) charge could not be severed to avoid the statutory complaint requirement.

¶ 11

Independently, the spot map placed the seven persons some distance from the police-station building and did not support the allegation that they obstructed police personnel in discharging their duties.

¶ 14–15