Police Cannot Initiate Prosecution U/S. 211 IPC Without Mandatory Written Complaint From Court U/S. 195 CrPC: Rajasthan High Court

It was observed that Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure creates an explicit bar against taking cognizance of such offences unless the court in relation to which the offence was committed formally presents the complaint.

​The Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed, “Hence, from perusal of Section 195(1)(b)(i) Cr.P.C., it is explicitly clear that for prosecution under Section 211 IPC, proceedings are to be initiated upon a complaint in writing by the Court in relation to which the said offence was committed. The offence under Section 211 IPC is a non-cognizable, bailable and non-compoundable one. Hence, to invoke Section 211 IPC, a complaint is required to be presented before the Court…In the instant case, no such complaint has been submitted by the Court concerned, hence, under these circumstances, the S.H.O. was not having any authority to file the impugned complaint against the petitioner, under Section 211 IPC and the learned Magistrate was not having any jurisdiction to take cognizance against the petitioner in view of the bar contained under Section 195 (1)(b)(i) Cr.P.C. On this count alone, the impugned order and the entire proceedings arising out of the complaint are not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same are liable to be and are hereby quashed and set-aside.”

Advocate Nishant Sharma appeared on behalf of the Petitioner, whereas PP Amit Punia appeared for the Respondents.

Facts of the Case

A criminal miscellaneous petition was filed impugning an order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur, District Jaipur, as well as the proceedings arising out of the criminal case pending against him before the Court, wherein cognizance has been taken against the petitioner under Section 211 IPC.

Contention of the Parties

The petitioner submitted that he had filed a criminal complaint against certain accused officials posted at the Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited with regard to certain irregularities committed by them while conducting the examination, wherein the answer sheets/ OMR sheet of the Petitioner was exchanged by committing forgery upon him.

It was argued that the Magistrate sent the Petitioner's complaint to the Jyoti Nagar Police Station for investigation, which resulted in a “Negative” final report that the court subsequently accepted. However, the Station House Officer (SHO) then filed a separate complaint against the petitioner under Section 211 of the IPC for allegedly filing a false report.

The Magistrate took cognizance of this new charge without providing a reasoned order. It was contended that because Section 211 is a non-cognizable offence related to court proceedings, Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Cr.P.C. required a formal complaint from the court itself rather than the police; since no such judicial complaint was made, they maintained that the proceedings were legally untenable and should be quashed.

Observations of the Court

The main question for consideration was whether the Police can submit a complaint under Section 211 of the IPC against the Petitioner when no such direction has been issued by the Court concerned, wherein the initial complaint was submitted by the Petitioner.

While reading the Section 211 of the IPC, the Court said, “By a plain reading of the aforesaid provisions, it appears that if an offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, the cognizance is barred, except on the complaint in writing of that Court, or by such Officer of the Court as that Court may authorize, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate. Thus, it is apparent that if an offence under Section 211 IPC is alleged to have been committed in relation to any proceeding in any Court, the bar under Section 195 (1)(b)(i) Cr.P.C. will come into picture and operate.”

The Court emphasized that because the S.H.O. had no authority to file the impugned complaint and the Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to take cognizance in the absence of a judicial complaint, the entire proceedings were unsustainable in the eyes of the law.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition.

Cause Title: Dev Narayan Gurjar v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. [Neutral Citation:2025:RJ-JP:48147]

Appearances:

Petitioner: Advocates Nishant Sharma and Dinesh Kumar

Respondents: PP Amit Punia

Click here to read/download the Order