Complaint Must Go To Superior Court: Himachal Pradesh High Court Quashes Complaint By SDM Against Against Woman Accused Of Disrupting Court Proceedings
The Court found that the SDM, despite being the very authority before whom the alleged disruption occurred, had incorrectly approached the police instead of following the special procedure.
Justice Sandeep Sharma, Himachal Pradesh High Court
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that where a Magistrate presiding over a court alleges that the court proceedings were obstructed or disrupted, the complaint regarding such disruption must be made in writing either to the court to which that Magistrate's court is administratively subordinate to, or to another public servant to whom he is subordinate, and not directly lodged with the police for registration of a criminal case.
The Court held that bypassing this statutorily mandated procedure under Section 215 of the BNSS renders the resulting police complaint, and any prosecution founded on it, unsustainable in law.
Quashing the Kalandra and consequent proceedings, the Court found that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, despite being the very authority before whom the alleged disruption occurred, had incorrectly approached the police instead of following the special procedure prescribed for offences against public justice and contempt of lawful authority, rendering the resulting criminal case without proper cognizance.
A Bench of Justice Sandeep Sharma observed, “…In the case at hand, complainant, i.e. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, made a written complaint to SHO, Police Station Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, which, after having conducted investigation, presented Kalandra in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, whereas as per law, complainant, on account of alleged disruption of court proceedings, ought to have made a complaint in writing either directly to the superior court or to some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate”.
Advocate Vinod Sharma appeared for the petitioner and Rajan Kahol and Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General appeared for the respondents.
The complainant, then working as Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rampur Bushahr, alleged that on February 24, 2025, during hearing of a case before him, the petitioner entered the courtroom without permission and disrupted proceedings by raising objections and advancing arguments on behalf of her husband, who was a party to the case.
Despite being directed to leave, she allegedly continued her disruptive conduct, obstructing the Magistrate in discharge of his official duties. Based on this complaint made to the SHO, Police Station Rampur Bushahr, a Kalandra was prepared under Sections 221 and 267 of the BNS and subsequently presented before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate after obtaining requisite permission.
The Kalandra was pending consideration on charges before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur Bushahr, when the petitioner approached the High Court under Section 528 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC) seeking its quashing, contending that no case under Sections 221 and 267 of the BNS could have been instituted without a written complaint from the appropriate public servant or court, as mandated under Section 215 of the BNSS.
Reiterating the settled principles governing quashing of criminal proceedings, the Court noted that proceedings could be quashed where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act.
Examining Section 215 of the BNSS, the Court held that “Bare perusal of aforesaid provision of law clearly reveals that no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 206 to 223 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, except on complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate, or of some other public servant who is authorized by the concerned public servant so to do”.
The Court relied on its earlier decision in Shubham Kashyap v. State of Himachal Pradesh Cr.MMO No. 520 of 2021, which in turn cited the Gujarat High Court's ruling explaining that the equivalent bar under Section 195 CrPC could not be evaded through devices or camouflage, since courts must examine whether the facts disclose primarily and essentially an offence for which a complaint of the court or of the public servant is required.
However, the Court noted, “…continuance of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner in the present case would be a sheer wastage of time of the learned trial Court and the same would amount to subjecting the petitioner to unnecessary and protracted ordeal of trial, which is bound to culminate in acquittal. If the evidentiary material collected on record to prove the guilt of the petitioner is perused in its entirety, this is not sufficient to connect the petitioner with the offence alleged to have been committed by him. To the contrary, if, on the basis of material adduced on record by the investigating agency, trial is allowed to continue, great prejudice would be caused to the petitioner and same would amount to sheer abuse of process of law”.
Cause Title: Pallavi Ramchaik v. State of H.P. & Ors., Cr.MMO No. 497 of 2026.
Appearances:
Petitioner: Vinod Sharma and Rakesh Kumar, Advocates.
Respondents: Rajan Kahol and Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, Ravi Chauhan and Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General.