Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: section 188 of indian penal code in (A Petition Under Section 482 Of The Code ... vs State Of Odisha .... Opp. Party (S) on 30 January, 2026Matching Fragments
12. This is a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the cognizance order dated 16.11.2020 passed by the SDJM, Jharsuguda in C.T. Case No. 2200/2020 (arising out of Jharsuguda P.S. Case No. 607 of 2020), involving alleged violation of COVID-19 containment orders. The petitioners challenge the cognizance taken under Sections 188, 269, 270, and 34 IPC and Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, on grounds that: (i) cognizance under Section 188 IPC is barred under Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C. due to absence of a written complaint from the competent authority; (ii) essential mens rea under Sections 269 and 270 IPC is lacking as there was no knowledge of infection before 20.08.2020;
and (iii) the investigation under the Epidemic Diseases Act was conducted by an unauthorized officer below the rank of Inspector, violating the statutory mandate. The petitioners argue that continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process.
13. Clause (a)(i) of Section 195(1) CrPC prohibits any court from taking cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 IPC (contempt of lawful authority of public servants) except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. In the present case, the allegations of disobedience (Section 188 IPC) relate to violation of an order promulgated by the District Magistrate & Collector, Jharsuguda on 12.08.2020 declaring the Malipada area as a containment zone. The informant (complainant) in the FIR is the local Tahasildar-
15. The law in this regard is well-settled that the embargo of Section 195 is absolute; if an offence falls under its ambit (as Section 188 IPC does), the court lacks jurisdiction to take cognizance in the absence of a proper written complaint by the competent public servant.
16. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that provisions of Section 195 are mandatory and not merely directory; a Magistrate cannot bypass this requirement by entertaining a police report for an offence like Section 188 IPC. In M.S. Ahlawat v. State of Haryana.1 the Supreme Court, after surveying earlier precedents, observed as follows:
The complaint must be in writing. The provisions of Section 195 Cr.PC are mandatory. Non-compliance of it would vitiate the prosecution and all other consequential orders. The Court cannot assume the cognizance of the case without such complaint. In the absence of such a complaint, the trial and conviction will be void ab initio being without jurisdiction."
18. In the present case, since admittedly no written complaint under Section 188 IPC was filed by the District Magistrate or other authorized officer, the very institution of proceedings for the Section 188 IPC charge is vitiated. The cognizance taken for the offence under Section 188 IPC is unsustainable in law and is liable to be set aside on this ground alone.