Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Arising From 2015 Protest Violence; Holds Section 195 CrPC Bar Applies at Cognizance Stage, Not at FIR or Investigation Stage

Case Name: Daljit Singh Grewal alias Bhola and Others vs. State of Punjab and Others
Date of Judgment: 29 November 2025
Citation: CRM-M-23232-2023
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court declined to quash an FIR registered for offences including obstruction and assault on public servants during a protest in 2015, holding that the bar under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure operates at the stage of taking cognizance by the court and not at the stage of registration of the FIR or investigation. The Court held that the legality of cognizance could be examined at the appropriate stage before the trial court.

Summary: The case arose out of protest demonstrations held across Punjab in October 2015 following incidents relating to sacrilege of Sri Guru Granth Sahib. During a protest march at Ludhiana, it was alleged that petitioner No.2, a political leader, along with other petitioners, violated prohibitory orders under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, obstructed police officials performing law and order duties, and instigated the driver of a vehicle to run over police personnel, who narrowly escaped serious injury.

An FIR was registered under Sections 186, 332, 353, 188 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, a government-constituted Inquiry Commission examined allegations of politically motivated prosecutions and recommended cancellation of the FIR only in respect of one accused, Simarjeet Singh Bains. Acting on this, a cancellation report was filed. However, the Judicial Magistrate did not accept the cancellation report and ordered further investigation. A supplementary report under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was thereafter submitted, leading to continuation of proceedings against the present petitioners.

The petitioners sought quashing of the FIR and all subsequent proceedings, contending that no fresh incriminating material had emerged after the Commission’s report, that the Magistrate had no basis to order reinvestigation, and that the prosecution was barred by Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as no written complaint had been filed by the concerned public servant.

The Court rejected these submissions. It held that the recommendation of the Inquiry Commission was not binding on the Magistrate and was, in any case, confined only to one accused. The Court further held that prima facie allegations disclosed offences involving use of criminal force to deter public servants from discharge of official duties. Relying on authoritative Supreme Court precedent, including Devendra Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court clarified that Section 195 creates a bar only at the stage of taking cognizance by the court and does not invalidate registration of an FIR or continuation of investigation by the police.

Decision: The petition was disposed of without quashing the FIR or the investigation. The Court granted liberty to the petitioners to raise the issue of the statutory bar under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the trial court at the stage when cognizance is considered, in accordance with law.