Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Investigation and Prosecution for Assault on Public Servants Despite Initial Obstruction Charge – “Cognizance for Offenses Under Sections 332 and 353 of IPC Permitted Without Complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C.”

Court’s Decision:

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed the petition and upheld the continuation of the proceedings in the lower court. The petitioner’s request to quash the complaint and related proceedings was denied, as the complaint disclosed offenses (Sections 332 and 353 of IPC) that did not require a formal complaint under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. Consequently, the petition was dismissed along with the pending applications, if any.

Facts:

The incident took place on March 7, 2020, during a scheduled board examination. The petitioner, Avinash Kumar, entered the examination hall unauthorized and after switching on his mobile phone. He began threatening the staff on duty and had a physical altercation with them, resulting in injuries to some staff members. The petitioner had no official duty or permission to be in the examination hall. Following the incident, the staff reported the matter to the principal, who subsequently filed a complaint with the police.

The police recorded the complaint and sought permission from the Judicial Magistrate to conduct an investigation, which was granted on March 18, 2020. The police then filed a Kalandra (a formal report) against the petitioner, charging him with an offense under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for obstructing a public servant in discharge of their duties.

Issues:

The main legal issues raised by the petitioner were:

1. Whether the proceedings initiated before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dehra, were valid, given that they were based on a Kalandra (police report) rather than a formal complaint under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C.
2. Whether the trial court had erred in treating the case as one involving an offense under Section 186 of the IPC, which pertains to obstruction, instead of Section 332 and 353, which involve using criminal force against public servants.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

The petitioner argued that Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. mandates that cognizance of an offense under Section 186 of the IPC can only be taken when a formal complaint is made by the public servant obstructed in the discharge of their duties. The petitioner claimed that since the Kalandra filed by the police did not meet this requirement, the Magistrate should not have entertained it.

Furthermore, the petitioner contended that the proceedings were jurisdictionally flawed because they were based on an offense under Section 186 (which involves obstruction) when more serious offenses, such as Section 332 (causing hurt to a public servant) and Section 353 (assault or use of criminal force against a public servant), were clearly made out from the facts.

Respondent’s Arguments:

The respondent, represented by the State, argued that the Kalandra disclosed a cognizable offense, and the Magistrate had rightly taken cognizance. The police had followed the legal procedures in investigating the case and filing the Kalandra. The respondent sought dismissal of the petition and upheld the continuation of the proceedings.

Analysis of the Law:

The Court analyzed the following legal aspects:

1. Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. restricts the power of the court to take cognizance of certain offenses unless a formal complaint is made by a competent public servant. However, this provision does not bar the trial of distinct offenses that are disclosed by the same set of facts.
2. The Court reviewed precedents concerning the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., which allows for quashing complaints or proceedings if they are found to be frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process. However, the Court emphasized that this power should be exercised sparingly.
3. The distinction between Section 186 (obstruction of a public servant) and Sections 332 and 353 (causing hurt or assaulting a public servant) was central to the case. The Court noted that while obstruction (Section 186) does not involve force, Sections 332 and 353 do. In this case, the petitioner’s actions not only obstructed the public servants but also involved criminal force and caused injury, thus making Sections 332 and 353 the appropriate charges.

Precedent Analysis:

• Daulat Ram vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1962 SC 1206) and C. Muniappan & Ors. vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2010) 9 SCC 567) were referred to for understanding when a complaint may be quashed and the role of Section 195 in such proceedings.
• Durgacharan Naik v. State of Orissa (1966) 3 SCR 636: This judgment was cited to distinguish between offenses under Section 186 and Section 353. It was clarified that an offense under Section 353 (assaulting a public servant) can be cognizable, while Section 186 (obstruction) is non-cognizable. This case also reinforced that courts can take cognizance of one offense even when the same facts may disclose multiple offenses.

Court’s Reasoning:

The Court examined the facts of the case, finding that the petitioner not only obstructed the staff but also used criminal force and caused hurt to a public servant, thus making offenses under Sections 332 and 353 of the IPC. The Court emphasized that the lower court had erred by considering the case solely under Section 186 and that the charges should have included the more serious offenses of assault and causing hurt. The distinction between Section 186 and Section 353 was crucial to the Court’s decision.

Further, the Court held that the Kalandra filed by the police did indeed fall within the definition of a complaint as per Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C., which includes written or oral allegations to a Magistrate to take action on the commission of an offense. The Kalandra described the offenses of assault and hurt, which were appropriate for judicial examination.

Conclusion:

The petition to quash the proceedings was dismissed. The Court found that although the charge under Section 186 of the IPC was inappropriate, the allegations did disclose more serious offenses (Sections 332 and 353 of IPC), for which proceedings could continue without needing a complaint under Section 195. The trial could proceed on the charges of assault and hurt, irrespective of the issue of the complaint requirement for obstruction.

Implications:

This judgment provides clarity on how courts should approach cases where multiple offenses arise from the same set of facts. It highlights that Section 195 of Cr.P.C. does not bar the prosecution for distinct offenses even if they are based on the same facts. The ruling also reaffirms that the Court’s power under Section 482 to quash complaints or proceedings should be exercised cautiously and only in clear cases of abuse of process. Additionally, it clarifies that Kalandra filed by the police in this case was a valid complaint and could be considered for judicial proceedings.

Also Read – Supreme Court on Procedural Lapses in Land Acquisition under Rajasthan Urban Improvement (RUI) Act, 1959: “Improper Notice Prejudices Rights of Landowners; Delayed Compensation and Statutory Violations Render Acquisitions Void”