IPC Sections 186 & 353 – Cognizance Without Written Complaint by Public Servant Invalid; Supreme Court Quashes Proceedings
Case Name: B.N. John v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another
Citation: Criminal Appeal (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2184 of 2024); 2025 INSC 4
Date of Judgment: 2 January 2025
Bench: Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh (DB)
Held: The Supreme Court held that cognizance of offences under Section 186 IPC cannot be taken without a written complaint by a public servant as mandated by Section 195(1)(a) CrPC. It further held that mere allegations of “disturbance” without specific acts of assault or use of criminal force do not attract Section 353 IPC. Since the FIR lacked ingredients of Section 353 and no valid complaint was filed under Section 186, the entire prosecution was vitiated.
Summary: The appellant, who managed a hostel for underprivileged children, was implicated after a raid conducted by officials alleging violations of the Juvenile Justice Act. An FIR was lodged on 03.06.2015 at PS Cantt, Varanasi under Section 353 IPC, later supplemented by Section 186 IPC. The Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance on 11.08.2015 and issued summons. The Allahabad High Court, by order dated 22.09.2023, declined to quash proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, noting similar rejection earlier for a co-accused.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that (i) no written complaint was filed by any public servant before a Judicial Magistrate, a sine qua non for prosecution under Section 186 IPC, and (ii) the FIR did not allege assault or criminal force, hence Section 353 IPC was wrongly invoked. The Court accepted both pleas, noting that the only complaint on record was addressed to the City Magistrate, an Executive Magistrate, which did not satisfy Section 195(1)(a) CrPC. It reiterated that “disturbance” cannot be equated with “assault” or “criminal force” under Sections 350 and 351 IPC, and subsequent witness statements suggesting assault were afterthoughts inconsistent with the FIR.
The Court emphasized that the absence of essential ingredients in the FIR meant that no cognizable offence was disclosed, and cognizance taken by the CJM was illegal. It applied the principle from State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar (2011) 14 SCC 770 that if the initial action is vitiated, all subsequent proceedings fall.
Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed Case No. 9790 of 2015 arising from Crime No. 290 of 2015 under Sections 353 and 186 IPC pending before the CJM, Varanasi, and set aside the Allahabad High Court’s order dated 22.09.2023. All consequential proceedings were declared void.