Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaswinder Singh @ Jaswinder Singh Sran vs State Of Punjab on 9 April, 2026
CRR-2652-2023 (O&M) 1
230
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
***
CRR-2652-2023 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 09.04.2026
Jaswinder Singh @ Jaswinder Singh Sran
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE H.S. GREWAL
Present : Mr. Deepanshu Mehta, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Rohit Hans, DAG, Punjab.
***
H.S. GREWAL, J. (Oral)
1. This revision petition has been filed for setting aside judgment and order dated 06.09.2023 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Moga, whereby the judgment and order dated 01.09.2022 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Baghapurana in case FIR No.26, dated 12.04.2020, under Sections 188 and 269 of IPC and Section 51 of Disaster Management Act, 2005 was upheld.
2. The brief facts, as per report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., are that on 12.04.2020, ASI Balwinder Singh along with other police officials were present at the bridge of canal at Sekhan Kalan Road in connection with checking due to Corona Pandemic Prohibitions. At that time, one car make I- 20 bearing registration No. PB04-U-8123 came from village Vairoke side. The said ASI stopped the car and asked the petitioner to produce the pass to HIMANI GUPTA 2026.04.24 16:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2652-2023 (O&M) 2 move the vehicle during curfew but he could not produce the same. He was also not wearing the mask. Accordingly, FIR was registered under Sections 188, 269 IPC and Section 51 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005. After investigation and completion of necessary formalities, the accused was arrested, released on bail, and the challan was presented before the learned Illaqa Magistrate.
3. Learned trial Court on finding a prima facie case, chargesheeted the petitioner under Sections 188, 269 of IPC and Section 51 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined PW1 ASI Balwinder Singh, PW2 Davinderpal Singh, Junior Assistant, Office of Deputy Commissioner Moga, PW3 Navdeep Singh, Steno, RTA Office Faridkot. Thereafter, the prosecution closed the evidence.
5. After closing the prosecution evidence, statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded, to which the accused/petitioner denied all the allegations levelled against him and pleaded his false implication.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned trial Court convicted the petitioner under Section 188 IPC and Section 51 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 and released him on probation.
7. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Moga vide order dated 06.09.2023.
8. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has come before this Court in the instant revision petition.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court has erred in convicting the petitioner and granting probation. It is argued that HIMANI GUPTA 2026.04.24 16:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2652-2023 (O&M) 3 the proceedings are vitiated as no FIR could have been registered for an offence under Section 188 IPC in view of the bar contained in Section 195 Cr.P.C., which mandates filing of a complaint. It is further contended that the prosecution failed to prove the promulgation of the alleged order or the petitioner's knowledge thereof, and thus no offence under Section 188 IPC is made out. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated, as he was already in custody in another FIR at the relevant time, rendering his alleged apprehension doubtful. It is lastly argued that the registration of the impugned FIR is illegal, barred by law, and disproportionate to the alleged act. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the order of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Court on its own motion versus State of Punjab and others, bearing CWP-PIL-29 of 2021 and CWP-PIL-112 of 2023, dated 01.10.2024, to submit that registration of FIRs under Section 188 IPC during the COVID- 19 pandemic, without compliance of Section 195 Cr.P.C. are illegal and unsustainable.
10. Notice of motion.
11. Mr. Rohit Hans, DAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. He has not disputed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the legal aspect of the case but has prayed that the petitioner has violated the COVID-19 norms.
12. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. This Court is of the considered view that the FIR (supra) has been registered in violation of the mandatory legal procedure. The allegations levelled therein do not constitute any cognizable offence under the invoked provisions, particularly in the absence of HIMANI GUPTA 2026.04.24 16:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2652-2023 (O&M) 4 compliance with the mandatory requirement under Section 195 Cr.P.C. accordingly the FIR cannot be sustained.
13. A bare reading of Section 195(1)(a) Cr.P.C. clearly shows that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence under Section 188 IPC except upon a complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. In the absence of such a complaint, the proceedings are void ab initio.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.S. Ahlawat vs. State of Haryana, (2000) 1 SCC 278, has categorically held that the provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C. are mandatory in nature, and non-compli- ance thereof deprives the Court of jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. The relevant extract thereof is reproduced hereunder:-
"Provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C. are mandatory and no court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of any of the offences mentioned therein unless there is a complaint in writing as required under that Section. It is settled law that every incorrect or false statement does not make it incumbent upon the court to order prosecution, but to ex- ercise judicial discretion to order prosecution only in the larger in- terest of the administration of justice."
15. Further, the Division Bench of this Court, while exercising suo motu jurisdiction in CWP-PIL-29 of 2021 and CWP-PIL-112 of 2023 (supra) has taken cognizance of the widespread illegal registration of FIRs under Section 188 IPC and the Epidemic Diseases Act during the COVID-19 outbreak and has quashed a large number of such cases across the States of Punjab, Haryana and U.T. Chandigarh. The relevant extract thereof is repro- duced hereunder:-
"The High Court being a Constitutional Court is also required to impart complete justice. Section 482 Cr.P.C. empowers the High Court to exercise its jurisdiction to prevent the abuse of the process of law to secure the ends of justice. Similar powers can be exercised HIMANI GUPTA 2026.04.24 16:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2652-2023 (O&M) 5 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as well, wherein the ju- risdiction of the High Court as a Constitutional Court is wider.
14. The Supreme Court in the case of Kapil Agarwal and others vs. Sanjay Sharma and others, (2021) 5 SCC 524 has held as un- der:-
"18.1 As observed and held by this Court in catena of deci- sions, inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution is designed to achieve salutary purpose that criminal proceedings ought not to be permitted to degenerate into weapon of harassment. When the Court is satisfied that criminal proceedings amount to an abuse of process of law or that it amounts to bringing pres- sure upon accused, in exercise of inherent powers, such pro- ceedings can be quashed.
18.2 As held by this Court in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641, Section 482 Cr.P.C. is prefaced with an overriding provision. The statute saves the inherent power of the High Court, as a superior court, to make such orders as are necessary (i) to prevent an abuse of the process of any Court; or (ii) otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Same are the powers with the High Court, when it exercises the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution."
15. Further, in the case of Babita Lila and another vs. Union of India, (2016) 9 SCC 647, the Supreme Court has laid down as fol- lows:-
"46. That the provisions of Section 195 of the Code are mandatory so much so that non-compliance thereof would vitiate the prosecu- tion and all consequential orders, has been ruled by this Court, amongst others in C. Muniappan and Others vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2010) 9 SCC 567 wherein the following observations in Sachida Nand Singh and Another vs. State of Bihar and Another (1998) 2 SCC 493 were recorded with approval.
"7.....Section 190 of the Code empowers 'any Magistrate of the First Class' to take cognizance of 'any offence' upon re- ceiving a complaint, or police report or information or upon his own knowledge. Section 195 restricts such general powers of the Magistrate, and the gen- eral right of a person to move the court with a complaint is to that extent curtained. It is a well recognised canon of inter- pretation that provision curbing the general jurisdiction of the court must normally receive strict interpretation unless the statute or the context requires otherwise.....". (emphasis sup- plied).
47. There is thus no escape from the proposition that for a valid complaint under Section 195 of the Code, the mandate thereof has to be essentially abided and as is easily perceiv- able this is to prevent frivolous, speculative and unscrupulous allegations relating to judicial proceedings in any court, lest the process of law is abused and public time is wasted in HIMANI GUPTA 2026.04.24 16:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2652-2023 (O&M) 6 avoidable litigation."
16. This Court in Shubham vs. State of Haryana, 2022 SCC On- Line P&H 4072 has held as under:-
"19. Adverting to the period of Covid-19 pandemic, indu- bitably the untiring efforts of the administration, its officials, police personnel, medics and paramedics etc. are laudable, to say the least. But for the imposition of restrictions, in larger public interest, the grave situation that was emerging, would have inevitably caused much more havoc in the lives of peo- ple, than it actually did, the surge of the cases of infection having been thereby contained, which was the need of the hour. Be that as it may, the proceedings for the alleged viola- tions committed of the administrative orders, are required to be examined in terms of the procedural requirement of the provisions and the law laid down.
20. It is trite law that the non-compliance of the established procedure as envisaged under Section 195 Cr.P.C. is an in- curable defect. In the present case the police having regis- tered the FIR for the offence under Section 188 IPC, being ex- plicitly hit by the aforesaid provision, has rendered the pro- ceedings void-ab-initio."
17. It is apt to notice that investigations in some of these cases are still underway while other matters have been sent for trial. A large number of these cases are clogging the judicial system, which is al- ready under strain due to huge backlog. It would be expedient and in the interest of justice if the cases, which have been registered under Section 188 IPC, by the police and not by the authorized officer, are quashed by this Court.
18. The Supreme Court has also passed several directions in the in- terest of public in cases inter alia pertaining to extending the period of limitation during Covid-19 Pandemic in Re: Cognizance for ex- tension of limitation, (2020) 9 SCC 468."
16. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and order dated 06.09.2023 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Moga and order dated 01.09.2022 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Baghapurana in case FIR No.26, dated 12.04.2020, under Sections 188 and 269 of IPC and Section 51 of Disaster Management Act, 2005, are hereby set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the charges framed against him. His bail bonds and surety bonds shall stand discharged.
09.04.2026 (H.S. GREWAL)
Himani JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
HIMANI GUPTA
2026.04.24 16:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document