MP High Court: Quashes Section 144 Case, Police Cannot Be Complainant

• The MP High Court quashed a criminal case against student Rajesh Achaliya for allegedly violating a Section 144 order.
• The court ruled that police cannot act as the complainant for such offenses, requiring a written complaint from the concerned public servant under Section 215 BNSS.
• Justice Pavan Kumar Dwivedi set aside the FIR, charge-sheet, and cognizance order, noting the absence of the required public servant's complaint.
• The High Court also found that a related charge of wrongful restraint was not supported by the investigating agency's own spot map.
• The ruling emphasized that closely connected offenses cannot be separated to bypass procedural bars, citing the Devendra Kumar v. State precedent.

This provision explicitly prohibits courts from taking cognizance of offenses, including those under Sections 206 to 223 of BNS (equivalent to Sections 172 to 188 of the IPC), unless a written complaint is filed by the public servant directly concerned with the alleged violation.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, sitting at Indore, recently overturned a criminal case against a student, Rajesh Achaliya, who faced charges for allegedly participating in a protest that violated a prohibitory order. Justice Pavan Kumar Dwivedi's ruling specifically quashed the First Information Report (FIR), the subsequent charge-sheet, and the trial court's order taking cognizance in the matter. The court found that the Station House Officer (SHO) had improperly acted as the complainant, a role legally reserved for the concerned public servant, thereby failing to meet a crucial procedural requirement.

The legal proceedings originated from an incident on June 30, 2024, when an initial FIR was filed against members of a tribal community. Subsequently, on July 6, 2024, members of the Jay Adivasi Yuva Shakti (JAYS) group, including Achaliya, sought the cancellation of this FIR from the SHO at Police Station Palsud in Barwani. In response, police registered a new case, Crime No. 198/2024, accusing seven JAYS members of gathering at the police station with banners and chanting slogans without the necessary permission from the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) in Rajpur. This conduct was deemed a breach of Clause 2.2 of a District Magistrate’s order issued on June 7, 2024, under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, leading to charges under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which corresponds to the former Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code. Following investigation, an additional charge of wrongful restraint, under Section 126(2) of BNS (previously Section 341 IPC), was included in the final report, and the trial court took cognizance against all seven individuals on December 16, 2024.

A central point of contention in Achaliya's appeal to the High Court revolved around the mandatory procedural safeguard outlined in Section 215 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which mirrors the former Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This provision explicitly prohibits courts from taking cognizance of offenses, including those under Sections 206 to 223 of BNS (equivalent to Sections 172 to 188 of the IPC), unless a written complaint is filed by the public servant directly concerned with the alleged violation. Achaliya contended that the charge of wrongful restraint, Section 126(2) BNS, was inextricably linked to the initial protest and could not be treated as a separate offense, arguing that its essential elements were absent and his involvement stemmed solely from his membership in JAYS and participation in the demonstration. He cited precedents such as C. Munyapan v. State of Tamil Nadu and Devendra Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) to support his position.

The State, in its defense, argued that the procedural objection had not been raised at the trial court level and that the lower court had, on October 13, 2025, found sufficient grounds to frame charges. It further asserted that a final report is not an exhaustive document and that the prosecution intended to substantiate its case through evidence during the trial. However, the High Court remained unconvinced by the State's arguments, specifically noting the "complete absence of any such complaint in writing by the public servant," which was a critical omission.

The High Court ultimately sided with Achaliya, emphasizing that the entire sequence of actions by the seven individuals constituted a single, continuous transaction. Drawing upon the Supreme Court's ruling in Devendra Kumar, which established that closely connected offenses cannot be artificially separated to circumvent legal bars, the High Court concluded that both the charges against Achaliya—defying the prohibitory order and wrongful restraint—were interdependent and would either stand or fall together. The court unequivocally stated that fulfilling the requirement of Section 215 BNSS is paramount for taking cognizance of an offense under Section 223 BNS, and consequently, the trial court lacked the authority to take cognizance of either offense in this particular instance.

Furthermore, Justice Dwivedi highlighted another significant factual discrepancy. The investigating agency's own spot map, documented in the Crime Detail Form on July 8, 2024, indicated that the seven protesters had gathered at a location some distance away from the police station building itself. This physical distance, as depicted in the official record, led the court to determine that no offense of wrongful restraint under Section 126 of BNS (formerly Section 339 IPC) could be substantiated. The petition was therefore granted, with the court also making an observation that a "bright student should not be dragged into criminal proceedings" unnecessarily.

Lawyers defending clients accused of violating prohibitory orders under Section 144 CrPC (now Section 223 BNS) should scrutinize the complaint's origin, as this ruling confirms that police cannot act as the complainant; a written complaint from the concerned public servant is a mandatory procedural safeguard. This precedent can be cited to challenge cases where this procedural requirement is not met, potentially leading to quashing of FIRs and cognizance orders.

Source: Original reporting via legal news source.