Allahabad High Court
Yogesh vs State Of U.P. on 17 October, 2025
Author: Saurabh Srivastava
Bench: Saurabh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:187321
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 23479 of 2025
Yogesh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Mazhar Ullah
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 77
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard Mr. Mazhar Ullah, learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for State.
2. Present application has been preferred with prayer to quash charge sheet dated 5.1.2023 along with cognizance order dated 21.1.2023 as well as entire criminal proceeding of Case no. 360 of 2023 (State vs. Yogesh Kumar) arising out of Case Crime no. 559 of 2022 under Section 174-A IPC, PS- Tanda, District Rampur.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned proceeding is barred under Section 195 Cr.P.C. as this Section specifically provides that cognizance of any offence punishable u/s 172 to 188 I.P.C., cannot be taken by the court except on the complaint in writing of the court concerned or its officer. However, in the present case, F.I.R. has been lodged by the Investigating Officer and even charge sheet of the same cannot be termed as "complaint" as per Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. because the same provides only for non-cognizable offences whereas Section 174-A I.P.C. is a cognizable offence.
4. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgement dated 8.1.2024 passed in case of Sumit and another vs. State of U.P. and 2 others passed by Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition no. 17560 of 2023. In that judgement, the Division Bench observed that cognizance u/s 174-A cannot be taken except on the basis of a formal written complaint as required u/s 195 Cr.P.C.
5. Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer sought through instant application but could not dispute the aforesaid arguments raised by learned counsel for applicant.
6. Before dealing with contentions of learned counsel for applicant, that FIR under Section 174-A IPC is barred by Section 195 Cr.P.C, it will be appropriate to discuss the legal provision, involved in the present case. Section 195 Cr.P.C. which prohibits the Court from taking cognizance of any offence punishable u/s 172 to 188 I.P.C., is being quoted below:-
"195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence.
(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
(ii) of any abetment of, or 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;
(b) (i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely, sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or
(ii) of any offence described in section 463, or punishable under section 471, section 475 or section 476, of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in sub- clause (i) or sub- clause (ii), except on the complaint in writing of that Court, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate.
(2) Where a complaint has been made by a public servant under clause (a) of sub- section (1) any authority to which he is administratively subordinate may order the withdrawal of the complaint and send a copy of such order to the Court; and upon its receipt by the Court, no further proceedings shall be taken on the complaint: Provided that no such withdrawal shall be ordered if the trial in the Court of first instance has been concluded.
(3) In clause (b) of sub- section (1), the term "Court" means a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court, and includes a tribunal constituted by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act if declared by that Act to be a Court for the purposes of this section.
(4) For the purposes of clause (b) of sub-section (1), a Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the appealable decrees or sentences of such former Court, or in the case of a Civil Court from whose decrees no appeal ordinarily lies, to the principal Court having ordinary original civil jurisdiction within whose local jurisdiction such Civil Court in situate: Provided that-
(a) where appeals lie to more than one Court, the Appellate Court of inferior jurisdiction shall be the Court to which such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate;
(b) where appeals lie to a Civil and also to a Revenue Court, such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Civil or Revenue Court according to the nature of the case or proceeding in connection with which the offence is alleged to have been committed."
7. After hearing the rival submissions extended by learned counsels for the parties, this Court observes that once Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C. prohibits, taking cognizance of offence under Section 174-A IPC, except on the basis of written complaint, then permitting lodging of and FIR under Section 174-A IPC will amount to travesty of justice to the person concerned as the personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be deprived except in accordance with law. If the court itself cannot take cognizance of offence under Section 174-A IPC, on the basis of police report, then lodging FIR under Section 174-A IPC, is futile and will be against the provision of Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C.
8. Arguments raised by learned counsel for applicant is squarely covered with the judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in case of Sumit and another (supra) and in view of foregoing discussion, entire proceeding initiated against applicant in shape of Case Crime no. 559 of 2022 is liable to be quashed.
9. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, entire proceeding of Case no. 360 of 2023 (State vs. Yogesh Kumar) arising out of Case Crime no. 559 of 2022 under Section 174-A IPC, PS- Tanda, District Rampur is hereby quashed and set aside in respect of applicant herein.
10. However, it is open to concerned court/authority to file a written complaint against the applicant u/s 174-A I.P.C. as per Section 195(1) Cr.P.C., if there is no legal impediment.
11. With the aforesaid observation, the instant application stands allowed.
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
October 17, 2025
Shaswat
