Public Officer Has To Submit Complaint As Per Section 215 BNSS: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes FIR U/S 223 BNS Against Protestor
The petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court was filed for quashing the First Information Report and the final report.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has quashed an FIR registered against a student accused of being a part of a protest against the action taken by the police against the tribal community members. The High Court noted that the complaint in the matter for breach of order passed under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed by the Police without there being any complaint by the concerned District Magistrate. The High Court further held that the Trial Court could not have taken cognisance when a the public officer didnot submit a complaint as per Sec.215 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
The petition before the High Court was filed for quashing the First Information Report and the final report submitted pursuant to the registration of the said charge-sheet in terms of Section 193 of BNSS, as well as the order taking cognisance.
The Single Bench of Justice Pavan Kumar Dwivedi held, “A bare perusal of the FIR would show that initially only an offence under Section 223 of BNS was registered by the respondent. However, FIR would show that there was no complaint by the concerned District Magistrate for breach of his order passed under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The FIR says that the petitioner and other six persons violated Clause 2.2 of the order dated 07.06.2024. Thus, an offence of disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant is made out under Section 223 of BNS according to the Station House Officer of Police Station - Palsud. Thus, he himself acted as complainant and registered FIR without there being any complaint by the concerned District Magistrate.”
"In the present case, the concerned public officer did not submit any such complaint. As such, the trial Court could not have taken cognizance of the matter and as the two offences cannot be split up into two separate transactions, the cognizance under Section 126(2) of BNS could also not have been taken by the trial Court in absence of compliance with Section 215 of BNSS", it added.
Advocate Parv Birla represented the Petitioner while Government Advocate Bhaskar Agrawal represented the respondent/State.
Factual Background
The petitioner scored distinction in four out of five subjects in his Class-12th examination. He scored distinction in two subjects in his Class-10th examination, and also cleared the Diploma in Elementary Education and passed the Primary School Teacher selection test. An FIR was registered against some members of the tribal community. Being aggrieved by the registration of the FIR, some members of Jay Adivasi Yuva Shakti (JAYS) submitted an application to the Station House Officer of Police Station - Palsud for cancellation of the FIR. Pursuant to which, another offence was registered by the Police Station - Palsud, whereby it was mentioned that members of JAYS namely Sumer Singh, Seema, Vikram, Tukaram, Kamal, Anil and Rajesh (petitioner), a total of seven persons, got together and gathered in the police station along with banners and raised slogans.
The Station House Officer mentioned in the FIR that the District Magistrate, Barwani, had passed an order in terms of Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, in violation of Clause 2.2 of the said order, the procession was taken out by the above-said persons, which was in breach of Section 223 of BNS. Hence, the case was registered against the aforesaid seven persons, including the present petitioner.
Reasoning
The Bench noted that initially only an offence under Section 223 of BNS was registered by the respondent. However, the FIR showed that there was no complaint by the concerned District Magistrate for breach of his order passed under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Referring to Section 215 of the BNSS, the Bench explained that as per this provision, no Court can take cognisance of any offence punishable under Sections 206 to 223 of BNS except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate or the public servant who is authorised by the concerned public servant so to do. In the present case, there is complete absence of any such complaint in writing by the public servant.
The Bench referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in Devendra Kumar vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. (2025) and held that for taking cognizance of an offence under Section 223 of BNS, the requirement of Section 215 of BNSS has to be fulfilled.
The Bench noticed that the spot map showed that seven persons were gathered at a place which was at some distance from the building of the police station and as such no offence under Section 126 of BNS was made out.
The Bench thus concluded, “Petitioner is a bright student who has scored distinction in four subjects out of five subjects in Class-12th. Such a bright student should not be unnecessarily dragged in criminal proceedings spoiling his entire career only for a trivial reason that he accompanied six persons who were agitating against the registration of FIR against some of the members of the tribal community. In view of the above conclusions and settled position of law, in the considered view of this Court, the order taking cognizance is not sustainable in the eyes of law.”
Thus, allowing the Petition, the Bench quashed the order taking cognizance and the FIR as well as the charge-sheet.
Cause Title: Rajesh Achaliya v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Neutral Citation:2026:MPHC-IND:30816)