Gujarat High Court
Virendrasinh @ Digubha Jadeja vs State Of Gujarat on 26 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/1052/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 1052 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
VIRENDRASINH @ DIGUBHA JADEJA & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HRIDAY BUCH(2372) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR HK PATEL APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
Date : 26/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Learned A.P.P. Mr.H.K. Patel waives service of Rule for the respondent - State.
2. With the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the present revision application is taken up for final hearing today.
Page 1 of 27 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 03:00:40 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1052/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined
3. The present revision application has been preferred by the present applicants - original accused under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, the "BNSS"), directing against the order dated 21.04.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jamnagar in Sessions Case No.51 of 2023 below exh.9, partly allowing the application for discharge preferred by the present applicants under Section 250 of the BNSS, discharging the present applicants for the offence punishable under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code and rejecting the discharge application qua the offence under Sections 307, 332 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. The short facts leading to the filing of the present revision application are that one FIR came to be lodged by Riteshbhai Amrutlal Kubavat before the Jamnagar City 'B' Division police station being C.R.No.11202009221114 of 2022 on 06.08.2022 against the present applicants - accused for the offence punishable under Sections 307, Page 2 of 27 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 03:00:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1052/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined 332, 186 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 4.1. In the said F.I.R., it is alleged that on the date of incident i.e. 06.08.2022, the complainant, who happens to be the police constable, along with the other police officers, were stationed near the Collector office, Jamnagar at around 10:15 in the morning and, at that time, one Creta car being No.GJ-10-DA-3689 came near them and present applicant no.1 - Virendrasinh Jadeja, who is the President of Jamnagar City Congress, along with applicant no.2, came out with the plastic cane and sprinkled liquid from the jar on themselves as well as other police officers near there and the police personals tried to prevent them. It is also stated in the F.I.R. that there was possibility of serious damage to the vehicles around them as well as the persons present there in the compound and the accused persons were made to seat at one place then, one Dolatsinh H. Jadeja, who happens to be the head constable, with the LCB, also came there and informed that while they were on patrolling near police Page 3 of 27 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 03:00:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1052/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined headquarter gate, the very black colour Creta car, driven by applicant no.1 - Virendrasinh Jadeja in a rash and negligent manner, was going towards the Collector office and in order to stop the said car, they tried to intervene the car but, the driver did not stop the car. It is alleged that the vehicle was driven in such a rash and negligent manner and he also tried to run over the said car on him and another police constable - Firoz Khafi to kill them. Thus, making such type of allegations, an F,I.R. came to be lodged against the present applicants - accused for the offence under Sections 307, 332, 186 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
4.2. After registration of the F.I.R., the present applicants have been arrested, investigation has been carried out and the present applicants have been released on bail by the learned Sessions Court and subsequently, after completion of investigation, the investigating officer has filed the chargesheet under Sections 307, 332, 186 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and as the offence is Page 4 of 27 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 03:00:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1052/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined exclusively triable by the learned Sessions Court, the same was committed to the Sessions Court and was numbered as Sessions Case No.51 of 2023. Before the learned Sessions Court, an application for discharge under Section 250 of the BNSS has been preferred by the present applicants - accused vide exh.8 and the same came to be partly allowed on 21.04.2025, discharging the present applicants for the offence punishable under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code only and for the rest of sections, they have not been discharged. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order of the learned Sessions Court, the present revision application has been preferred.
5. Learned advocate Mr.Hriday Buch for the applicants submitted that the impugned order is erroneous, illegal, contrary to the settled legal principles of law and the same is required to be quashed and set aside. It is submitted that as per the case of the prosecution and perusing the material produced along with the Page 5 of 27 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 03:00:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1052/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined chargesheet, the prosecution has failed to put forward any ingredients, which are essential to satisfy the requirements for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 332, 186 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and as the present applicants are belonging to the opposite political party, they have been falsely implicated in the said offence, which is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It is submitted that the learned trial Court has completely misread the provisions of Section 195(1)
(a)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, the "Code") and bare reading of Section 195 of the Code, makes it clear that the complaint, as defined under Section 2(d) of the Code, is to be filed before the learned Magistrate for the offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188, both inclusive of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that in the present case, no complaint has been filed before the Court and hence, the order passed by the learned Sessions Court is required to be quashed and set aside. It is further submitted that from the bare reading of the F.I.R. and the chargesheet papers, it appears that Page 6 of 27 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 03:00:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1052/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined they are interwoven and so far as the offences under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under
Sections 307, 332 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code are concerned, the said offences cannot split and are arising out of a same transaction only but, the learned trial Court has wrongly come to the conclusion that the offence under Section 186 and the other offences of the Indian Penal Code can be split and hence, only discharged the present applicants for the offence punishable under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code and from the other offence under Sections 307, 332 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, the present applicants are not discharged.
6. In support of his arguments, learned advocate Mr.Buch has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Devendra Kumar vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) and another, reported in 2025 INSC 1009 and submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the various decisions on this ground and concluded that Page 7 of 27 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 03:00:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1052/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined Section 195(1)(a)(i) of the Code bars the Court from taking cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 respectively of the Indian Penal Code, unless there is a written complaint by the public servant concerned. Further, it is submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court also observed that if in truth and substance, an offence falls in the category of Section 195(1)(a)(i), it is not open to the Court to undertake the exercise of splitting them up and proceeding further against the accused for the other distinct offences disclosing the same set of facts and under all the circumstances, the Court cannot undertake the exercise of splitting up the offences and the Court also has to consider that when the other distinct offences not covered by Section 195(1)(a)(i) have been invoked only with a view to evade the mandatory bar of Section 195(1)
(a)(i) of the Code, then it cannot be split and cannot be termed as a separate and distinct offence from Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code.
Page 8 of 27 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 03:00:40 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1052/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined 6.1. It is submitted that considering the above, the impugned order passed by the Sessions Court is ex-facie illegal, perverse, against the settled principles of law and is required to be quashed and set aside.
7. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. Mr.H.K. Patel has vehemently opposed the present revision application and submitted that the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is just and proper and does not require any interference. Further, the learned Sessions Court has considered every aspects of the matter, considering the material produced along with the chargesheet, F.I.R. and statements of the witnesses. It is submitted that from the injury certificate, it clearly established that the present applicants - accused have not only obstructed the police officers from discharging their duties but, also tried to kill the police persons, trying to run over the car on them and also sprinkled kerosene or any inflammable liquid on the police constables. It is submitted that these are the distinct Page 9 of 27 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 03:00:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1052/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined offences and the same can be easily split and, therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly discharged the present applicants - accused under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code and also rightly not discharged the applicants from the offence punishable under Sections 307, 332 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 7.1. In support of his arguments, learned A.P.P. Mr.Patel has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. vs. Suresh Chandra Srivastava and others , reported in (1984)3 SCC 92.
8. Considered the arguments advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Court.
9. It is the case of the present applicants - accused that the chargesheet has been filed against them by the investigating officer for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 332, 186 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. Page 10 of 27 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 03:00:40 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1052/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined It is not in dispute that the said complaint came to be given by the original complainant, who is a public servant before the concerned police station. It is the case of applicants that there is a specific bar under Section 195(1)(a)(i) of the Code to take cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 of the Code, except only complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or other public servant before the Court. Admittedly, no complaint has been given before the Court by the original complainant, who is a public servant.
10. Now, the question before the Court is whether the offence punishable under Sections 307, 332, 186 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code can be considered as a distinct offence or the same cannot be splited. In this regard, it is profitable to peruse Section 195(1) of the Code, which reads as under:-
"195(1) No Court shall take cognizance-
(a)(i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or Page 11 of 27 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 03:00:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1052/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined
(ii) of any abetment of, attempt to commit, such offence, or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, such offence, Except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate."
11. So, the plain and simple reading of the opening recital of Section 195 of the Code pertains to bar taking cognizance of the offences of the Indian Penal Code mentioned therein, except on the complaint in writing to the Court and the offences can be said to be distinct even if they are forming part of the same transaction, if their characteristics and ingredients are different. Thus, the offences, which do not require any complaint as stipulated under Section 195 of the Code will fall under the category of distinct offences, if their characteristics and the ingredients are different though they form part of the same transaction.
12. In this regard, it is required to consider the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Basir- Page 12 of 27 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 03:00:40 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1052/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined Ul-Haq and others, reported in (1953)1 SCC 637. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-
"17. Though, in our judgment, Section 195 does not bar the trial of an accused person for a distinct offence disclosed by the same facts and which is not included within the ambit of that section, it has also to be borne in mind that the provisions of that section cannot be evaded by resorting to devices or camouflages. The test whether there is evasion of the section or not is whether the facts disclose primarily and essentially an offence for which a complaint of the court or of the public servant is required. In other words, the provisions of the section cannot be evaded by the device of charging a person with an offence to which that section does not apply and then convicting him of an offence to which it does, upon the ground that such latter offence is a minor offence of the same character, or by describing the offence as being one punishable under some other section of the Penal Code, though in truth and substance the offence falls in the category of sections mentioned in Section 195 CrPC. Merely by changing the garb or label of an offence which is essentially an offence covered by the provisions of Section 195 prosecution for such an offence cannot be taken cognizance of by misdescribing it or by putting a wrong label on it."
13. Thus, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Basir-Ul- Haq and others (supra), has approved the decision of the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Satish Chandra Chakravarti v. Ram Doyal, reported in Page 13 of 27 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 03:00:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1052/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined AIR 1921 Cal 1 and held that Section 195 does not bar trial of an accused person for distinct offence disclosed by the same facts and which is not included within the ambit of that Section.
14. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Durgacharan Naik and others v. State of Orissa, reported in 1966 SCC OnLine SC 58, has held as under:-
"5. We pass on to consider the next contention of the appellants that the conviction of the appellants under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code is illegal because there is a contravention of Section 195(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code which requires a complaint in writing by the process server or the ASI It was submitted that the charge under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code is based upon the same facts as the charge under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code and no cognizance could be taken of the offence under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code unless there was a complaint in writing as required by Section 195(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. It was argued that the conviction under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code is tantamount, in the circumstances of this Page 14 of 27 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 03:00:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1052/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined case, to a circumvention of the requirement of Section 195(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code and the conviction of the appellants under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code by the High Court was, therefore, vitiated in law. We are unable to accept this argument as correct. It is true that most of the allegations in this case upon which the charge under s. 353, Indian Penal Code is based are the same as those constituting the charge under s. 186, Indian Penal Code but it cannot be ignored that ss. 186 and 353, Indian Penal Code relate to two distinct offences and while the offence under the latter section is a cognizable offence, the one under the former section is not so. The ingredients of the two offences are also distinct. Section 186, Indian Penal Code is applicable to a case where the accused voluntarily obstructs a public servant in the discharge of his public functions but under s. 353, Indian Penal Code the ingredient of assault or use of criminal force while the public servant is doing his duty as such is necessary. The quality of the two offences is also different. Section 186 occurs in Ch. X of the Indian Penal Code dealing with Contempts of the lawful authority of public servants, while s. 353 occurs in Ch.XVI regarding the offences affecting the human body. It is well-established that s. 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not bar the trial of an accused person for a distinct offence disclosed by the same set of facts but which is Page 15 of 27 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 03:00:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1052/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined not within the ambit of that section. In Satis Chandra Chakravarti v. Ram Dayal De(1) it was held by Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court that where the maker of a single statement is guilty of two distinct offences, one under s. 21 1, Indian Penal Code, which is an offence against public justice, and the other an offence under S. 499, wherein the personal element largely predominates, the offence under the latter section can be taken cognizance of without the sanction of the court concerned, as the Criminal Procedure Code has not provided for sanction of court (1) 24 C.W.N. 982. for taking cognizance of that offence. It was said that the two offences being fundamentally distinct in nature, could be separately taken cognizance of. That they are distinct in character is patent from the fact that the former is made non-compoundable, while the latter remains compoundable; in one for the initiation of the proceedings the legislature requires the sanction of the court under S. 195, Criminal Procedure Code, while in the other, cognizance can be taken of the offence on the complaint of the person defamed. It is pointed out in the Full Bench case that where upon the facts the commission of several offences is disclosed some of which require sanction and others do not, it is open to the complainant to proceed in respect of those only which do not require sanction; because to hold otherwise would amount to legislating and adding very Page 16 of 27 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 03:00:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1052/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined materially to the provisions of ss.195 to 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The decision of the Calcutta case has been quoted with approval by this Court in Basir-ul-Huq and Others v. The State of West Bengal (1) in which it was held that if the allegations made in a false report disclose two distinct offences, one against a public servant and the other against a private individual, the latter is not debarred by the provisions of s. 195, Criminal Procedure Code, from seeking redress for the offence committed against him.
6. In the present case, therefore, we are of the opinion that S. 195, Criminal Procedure Code does not bar the trial of the appellants for the distinct offence under s. 353 of the Indian Penal Code, though it is practically based on the same facts as for the prosecution under s. 186, Indian Penal Code.
7. ..... Two distinct offences having been committed in the same transaction, one an offence of misappropriation under s. 409 and the other an offence under s. 477-A which required the sanction of the Governor, the circumstance that cognizance could not be taken of the latter offence without such consent was not considered by the Federal Court as a bar to the trial of the appellant with respect to the offence u/s. 409.
8. We have expressed the view that s. 195, Page 17 of 27 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 03:00:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1052/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined Criminal Procedure Code does not bar the trial of an accused person for a distinct offence disclosed by the same or slightly different set of facts and which is not included within the ambit of the section, but we must point out that the provisions of S. 195 cannot be evaded by resorting to devices or camouflage. For instance, the provisions of the section cannot be evaded by the device of charging a person with an offence to which that section does not apply and then convicting him of an offence to which it does, on the ground that the latter offence is a minor one of the same character, or by describing the offence as one punishable under some other section of the Indian Penal Code, though in truth and substance the offence falls in the category of sections mentioned in s. 195, Criminal Procedure Code. Merely by changing the garb or label of an offence which is essentially an offence covered by the provisions of s. 195 prosecution for such an offence cannot be taken cognizance of by misdescribing it or by putting a wrong label on it. On behalf of the appellants Mr. Garg suggested that the prosecution of the appellants under s. 353, Indian Penal Code was by way of evasion of the requirements of s. 195, Criminal Procedure Code. But we are satisfied that there is no substance in this argument and there is no camouflage or evasion in the present case."Page 18 of 27 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 03:00:40 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1052/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined
15. In the above decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court has approved the observations made in the case of Basir-Ul- Haq and others (supra) and also considered the Full Bench decision of the Culcutta High Court in the case of Satish Chandra Chakravarti v. Ram Doyal (supra) and held that when the maker of a single statement is guilty of two distinct offences which are fundamentally distinct in nature, could be separately taken cognizance of.
16. Further, in the case of Pankaj Aggarwal v. State of Delhi reported in 2001 LawSuit (SC) 427, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in para 3 as under:-
"3. ..... But in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in AIR 1966 SC 1775 where the Court has analysed the provisions of Section 353, IPC and 186, IPC and held that the two are distinct offences and the quality of the offence is also different, we are of the opinion that judgment of the Pujab High Court is not correct in law and has taken a view contrary to the law laid down by this Court. What has been stated earlier in the aforesaid case in relation to the provisions of Page 19 of 27 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 03:00:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1052/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined Section 353, IPC would equally apply to the provisions of Section 332 of the IPC. This being the position, we are unable to accept the contention of Mr. Jain that the provisions of Section 195(1)(a)(i) bars taking cognizance of Section 332/34, IPC. We, however, agree with Mr. Jain that the order taking cognizance of section 186 of the IPC is bad in law and attracts the mischief of Section 195. In the aforesaid premises, we quash the criminal proceedings so far as the charge under Section 186 IPC is concerned and direct that the criminal proceedings would continue so far as the charge under section 332/34, IPC is concerned."
17. The learned advocate for the applicants has relied upon the latest pronouncement by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.12373 of 2025 in the case of Devendra Kumar (supra) wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the judgment in the case of Basir-Ul-Haq and others (supra) and also other decisions and concluded as under:-
"59. We may summarize our final conclusion as under:Page 20 of 27 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 03:00:40 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1052/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined
(i) Section 195(1)(a)(i) of the Cr.P.C. bars the court from taking cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 respectively of the
1.P.C., unless there is a written complaint by the public servant concerned or his administrative superior, for voluntarily obstructing the public servant from discharge of his public functions.
Without a complaint from the said persons, the court would lack competence to take cognizance in certain types of offences enumerated therein.
(ii) If in truth and substance, an offence falls in the category of Section 195(1)(a)(i), it is not open to the court to undertake the exercise of splitting them up and proceeding further against the accused for the other distinct offences disclosed in the same set of facts. However, it also cannot be laid down as a straitjacket formula that the Court, under all circumstances. cannot undertake the exercise of splitting up. It would depend upon the facts of each case, the nature of allegations and the materials on record.
(iii) Severance of distinct offences is not permissible when it would effectively circumvent the protection afforded by Section 195(1)(a)(i) of the Cr.P.C.. which requires a complaint by a public servant for certain offences against public justice. This means that if the core of the offence falls under the purview of Section 195(1)(a)(i), it cannot be prosecuted by simply filing a general Page 21 of 27 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 03:00:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1052/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined complaint for a different, but related, offence. The focus should be on whether the facts, in substance, constitute an offence requiring a public servant's complaint.
(iv) In the aforesaid context, the courts must apply twin tests. First, the courts must ascertain having regard to the nature of the allegations-made-in the complaint/FIR and other materials on record whether the other distinct offences not covered by Section 195(1)(a)(i) have been invoked only with a view to evade the mandatory bar of Section 195 of the L.P.C. and secondly, whether the facts primarily and essentially disclose an offence for which a complaint of the court or a public servant is required.
(v) Where an accused is alleged to have committed some offences which are separate and distinct from those contained in Section 195, Section 195 will affect only the offences mentioned therein. However, the courts should ascertain whether such offences form an integral part and are so intrinsically connected so as to amount to offences committed as a part of the same transaction, in which case the other offences also would fall within the ambit of Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. This would all depend on the facts of each case.
(vi) Sections 195(1)(b)(i)(ii) & (iii) and 340 of the Cr.P.C. respectively do not control or Page 22 of 27 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 03:00:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1052/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined circumscribe the power of the police to investigate, under the Criminal Procedure Code. Once investigation is completed then the embargo in Section 195 would come into play and the Court would not be competent to take cognizance. However, that Court could then file a complaint for the offence on the basis of the FIR and the material collected during investigation, provided the procedure laid down in Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. is followed."
18. Further, reliance is placed by learned A.P.P. Mr.Patel in the case of State of U.P. (supra) wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-
"6. In these circumstances, therefore, it is not necessary for us to go into the broader question as to whether if offences under Sections 467, 471 and 120-B, IPC are committed, the complaint could procced or not. The law is now well settled that where an accused commits some offences which are separate and distinct from those contained in Section 195, Section 195 will affect only the offences mentioned therein unless such offences form an integral part so as to amount to offences committed as a part of the same transaction, in which case the other offences also would fall within the ambit of Section 195 of the Code.Page 23 of 27 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 03:00:40 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1052/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined
7. In the instant case, as already pointed out by us, on the facts narrated by the Registrar in his complaint no offence under Sections 467, 471 and 120-B, IPC is at all revealed and as such it is not necessary to go into the question as to what offences are connected with Sections 467, 471 and 120-B and which are severable from them. The High Court was fully justified in quashing the proceedings against the accused as far as offences under Sections 467, 471 and 120-B, IPC were concerned, not because they were covered by Section 195 of the Code but because allegations contained in the complaint did not constitute these offences. The High Court was further fully justified in directing that other offences mentioned above did not require a complaint under Section 195 and would have to be tried."
19. Considering the decisions relied upon by the learned advocates for the respective parties, the following established principle of the parameters are found:-
(a) There is no bar of taking cognizance under section 195(1)(a) of the Cr.P.C. if the offences are separate and distinct having different ingredients and characteristics from those contained in section 195(1)(a) of the Cr.P.C.;
(b) Bar of taking cognizance under section 195 of the Cr.P.C. will apply if the offences cannot be segregated and they form integral part;Page 24 of 27 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 03:00:40 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1052/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined
(c) The offences must be committed as a part of the same transaction;
(d) Such offences can be segregated on the basis of element of public justice (viz. Offences occurring in ChapterX of the Cr.P.C.) and personal element (viz offences under ChapterXVI of the Cr.P.C.) though committed as a part of the same transaction. If the personal element largely predominates, such offence can be taken cognizance without a written complaint."
20. So, considering the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court, as discussed above and considering the facts of the present case, as per the charge-sheet and complaint, it appears that the present applicants - original accused have, while they were in Creta Car, took kerosene with them, which is a very highly inflammable and drive towards the Seva Sadan, at that time, when the witness nos.22 and 23 tried to stop them, those who were the police officers, to commit the offence of attempt of murder, the applicants have tried to run over the Creta car on the said persons and thereafter, when the other police officials, who were on the gate of Seva Sadan Page 25 of 27 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 03:00:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1052/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined building, tried to stop the car, they have not stopped there and subsequently, in the Seva Sadan, they came out from the car and sprinkled kerosene on themselves as well as the complainant and other witnesses also and thereby, committed the offence. Therefore, from the chargesheet and the complaint, it appears that the present applicants - accused have obstructed the public servants from performing their duty and also tried to run over the car on the police officials and also sprinkled kerosene on the witnesses and themselves. So, offence under Sections 307 and 332 of the Indian Penal Code is distinct offence from the offence under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code. So far as taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 186 of the IPC is concerned, it is bad in law and attracts bar of Section 195, but so far as the other offences are concerned, more particularly, Sections 307 and 332 of the Indian Penal Code, there is no bar under Section 195(1)(a)(i) of the Code to continue proceedings against the accused. Page 26 of 27 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 03:00:40 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1052/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined
21. From the chargesheet papers and the statements of witnesses as well as from the F.I.R., it clearly found that the offence under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code and other offences under Sections 307 and 332 of the Indian Penal Code are segregated and looking to the facts of the case, the learned Sessions Judge, while deciding the application partly, has already discharged the present applicants for the offence punishable under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code and rejected the discharge application qua the offence under Sections 307 and 332 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
22. In view of the above, the findings recorded by learned Sessions Judge are just and proper and the impugned order do not require any interference and I do not find any merits in the present revision application.
23. Accordingly, the present Criminal Revision Application is hereby rejected. Rule is discharged.
(L. S. PIRZADA, J) Hitesh Page 27 of 27 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 03:00:40 IST 2025