[Cites 20, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kulwant Singh @ Kulwant Pandori vs Union Territory Chandigarh on 29 November, 2025
CRM-M-22106
22106-2023 with connected matters
-11-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
290/2 Reserved on: 04.11.2025
Pronounced on: 29.11.2025
Uploaded on: 29.11.2025
1. CRM-M
M-22106-2023
AMAN ARORA ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH ...Respondent(s)
2. CRM-M
M-21450-2023
JARNAIL SINGH ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
UNION TERRITORY,
TERRITORY CHANDIGARH ...Respondent(s)
3. CRM-M
M-22205-2023
JAI KRISHAN SINGH ALIAS JAI KRISHAN ROURI
...Petitioner(s)
Versus
UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH ...Respondent(s)
4. CRM-M
M-22208-2023
KULWANT SINGH ALIAS KULWANT PANDORI
...Petitioner(s)
Versus
UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH ...Respondent(s)
5. CRM-M
M-22447-2023
MANJIT SINGH ALIAS MANJIT SINGH BILASPUR
...Petitioner(s)
Versus
UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH ...Respondent(s)
1 of 10
::: Downloaded on - 29-11-2025 20:56:58 :::
CRM-M-22106
22106-2023 with connected matters
-22-
6. CRM-M
M-25489-2023
GAGANDEEP KAUR ALIAS ANMOL GAGAN MAAN
...Petitioner(s)
Versus
UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH ...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA
Present:- Dr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Pratham Sethi, Advocate,
Ms. Sandhya Gaur, Advocate,
Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate,
Mr. Kanishk Swaroop, Advocate,
Ms. Kritima Sareen, Advocate
Mr. Raghav Gulati, Advocate
for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Manish Bansal, Public Prosecutor, U.T., Chandigarh.
Mr.Viren Sibal, Additional Public Prosecutor, U.T., Chandigarh.
Mr.Rajiv Vij, Additional Public Prosecutor, U.T., Chandigarh.
TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J.
The aforementioned petitions arise out of one FIR involving
common allegations against the petitioners; accordingly, the same are being
decided together.
2. For brevity, the facts have been noticed from CRM-M-22106--
2023, which has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (for short, Cr.P.C.), seeking quashing of FIR no.76 dated
06.10.2021, under Section 186, 188, 332, and 353 of the Indian Penal Code,,
1860 (for short, IPC), registered at Police Station North, Chandigarh, along
with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, including the final
report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., dated 10.04.2022
10.04.2022, and chargesheet/order
/order
framing charge,
charge dated 18.03.2023, qua the petitioner.
2 of 10
CRM-M-22106
22106-2023 with connected matters
3. The FIR in question has been lodged against the petitioners along
with co-accused
accused; its translated version, as reproduced in the petition, reads
thus:
Statement of C. Vinod Kumar No. 5122/CP PS 03 CHD
Age 34 Years, stated that I am posted at above mentioned address
as Constable and today my duty was affixed at Petrol Pump
Sector 4/9 CHD Turn in concern of Route Duty, that during that
time upon getting information from Police Station, reached at
MLA Hostel Punjab, where today Aam Aadmi Party (Branch)
Punjab in concern of a Rally as opposed to the incidence at
Lakhimpur Khiri (UP) MLAs of Aam Aadmi Party, leaders and
works have gathered at MLA Hostel Punjab, they shall proceed
to Governor Punjab Residence for doing encirclement, that upon
same information I reached MLA Hostel Punjab main gate
(Petrol Pump) side where barricading was done, where DSP
Central Shri Charanjit Singh Virk, SHO Insp. Sher Singh along
with employees of Police Station Mrs. Palika Arora Duty
Magistrate, Inspector SHO Lakhbir Singh PS Sarangpur along
with staff and other Law and order force was present at above
mentioned barricading, that time would be around 01.30 PM that
leaders and workers of Aam Aadmi Party which include 1. Aman
Arora MLA Sangrur PB, 2. Sh. Jarnail Singh, 3. Master Baldev
Singh Faridkot, 4. Smt. Sarabjeet Kaur Manuke Jagraon, 5. Sh.
Kulwant Singh Pandori Malerkotla, 6. Sh. Jai Krishan Rori, 7.
Manjeet Singh Bilaspur and other leaders under the leadership of
Jarnail Singh Incharge AAP Punjab, Sh. Anmol Gagan Mann
while addressing 500-600 workers as opposed to the incidence of
Lakhimpur Khiri (UP) while raising slogans of down with Modi
Government and Yogi Government, while coming out from
MLA Hostel Punjab proceeded towards Barricading where Duty
Magistrate deployed there and other senior officers asked the
gathering coming from front side to stop at Barricading and told
that your gathering is against the law. Permission of which has
not been given by worthy DC, that the gathering is
3 of 10
CRM-M-22106
22106-2023 with connected matters
unconstitutional, therefore, you may not try to cross the
barricading and forward ahead and whatever is your demand
lett
letter, they we can deliver to the Government and two three
persons of yours while carrying your demand letter accompany
along with us and can handover at Governor house because apart
from Rally Ground Sector 25 gathering of more than five persons
is violation of section 144 Cr.P.C. upon hearing this the gathering
upon provoking by above included leaders and workers got
violent and started bullyragging with the Police force present
there and started breaking the barricade and about to march ahead
then according to the orders of Duty Magistrate above
gathering/crowd started bullyragging with the police force
deployed there then during that time apart from me other
employees including C. Parveen, L/C Anu also sustained injuries,
that the leaders and workers of AAP Party by gathering illegal
crowd have caused obstructions in our Government duty by
bullyragging us by sustaining injuries to us have stopped us from
performing Government Duty, that legal action may be initiated
against the workers and the leaders of Aam Aadmi Party
involved in above mentioned gathering. I have recorded the
statement read over, which is correct. Sd/- C. Vinod Kumar belt
No. 5122/CP.
3.1. As per the Medico Legal Reports (MLRs), Annexure P-5, the
injuries suffered by the officials have been declared simple in nature:
In case of Parveen Kumar, Constable
Constable, the injury is:
Sr. No. Injuries Marked
1 Red abrasion left index finger no tenderness No
no swelling
In case of complainant, Vinod Kumar
Kumar, the injuries are:
Sr. No. Injuries Marked
1 Red abrasion left index finger hand not No
tenderness no swelling
2 Lacerated wound above left eye brow No
1X0.5CM no tenderness swelling
4 of 10
CRM-M-22106
22106-2023 with connected matters
3.2. After completion of the investigation
investigation, challan, dated 10.04.2022,,
was presented in the Court against the petitioners under Sections 186, 188,,
332 and 353 of IPC. Along with it, a complaint in writing was also filed by
the public servant/concerned official in compliance of provisions of Section
195 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, vide impugned order dated 18.03.2023, charge was
framed against the petitioners under Section 147
147, 186, 188, 332, 353 read with
Section 149 IPC.
IPC
4. In this factual background, learned senior counsel for the
petitioners contends
contend that no overt act or injury has been specifically attributed
to the petitioners. Even otherwise, the injuries suffered by the complainantt
and other police officials were declared simple in nature. Further, the police
could not have prevented the petitioners from protesting peacefully or
carrying out the demonstration. The protest march had been organised against
actions of the Government, and they had the fundamental right to protest
under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Still further, the mandatory
procedure under Section 195 Cr.P.C. was not followed before lodging the FIR
and it could not have been registered; nor could the cognizance be taken
against the petitioners except on a complaint by a public servant as laid down
by the provisions of Section 195(1)(a) Cr.P.C., and undisputedly there was no
complaint against them to the police. In support of the contention, learned
senior counsel has relied upon the Supreme Court judgments in Basir-Ul-Huq
Huq
and others v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1953 SC 293 and State of Karnatka
v. Hemareddy,
Hemareddy (1981) 2 SCC 185. Lastly, it is contended that essential
ingredients of the offence of causing hurt (under Section 332) and assault or
use of criminal force to deter a public servant from discharge of his duty
(under Section 353), are not made out against the petitioners.
5 of 10
CRM-M-22106
22106-2023 with connected matters
5. Learned Public Prosecutors, on the contrary, contended that the
petitioners along with other protestors were leading an unlawful politicall
protest which had turned unruly. The police personnel and officials were
obstructed from performing their duties; they were pushed and assaulted,
resulting the injuries to them, as established by the MLRs attached with the
chargesheet. By
B instigating the crowd, the petitioners formed a common
intention to obstruct and assault the police officials on duty. The offences
under Sections 332 and 353 IPC are clearly made out as per the allegations.
The provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C. are not attracted at the stage of
investigation, and its compliance is required only at the time of taking
cognizance by the Court. This has been settled by the Supreme Court in State
of Punjab v. Raj Singh and another, (1998) 2 SCC 391, M. Narayandas v.
State of Karnataka and others,(2003) 11 SCC 251, and Devendra Kumar v.
The State (NCT of Delhi) and another, 2025 1NSC 1009. Accordingly, the
grounds of challenge put forth by the petitioners are not sustainable.
6. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been
considered.
7. One of the questions raised before the Court relate to compliance
of mandatory procedure laid down under Section 195 Cr.P.C., which has
given rise to the following issue:
T stage when compliance of the procedure under Section 195
The
Cr.P.C. is mandated.
7.1. Recent
Recently, the Supreme Court in Devendra Kumar case,
considered entire law on the issues aforementioned
aforementioned, including the cases relied
upon by learned counsel for the parties - Basir
Basir-Ul-Huq, Hemareddy, Raj
Singh and M. Narayandas.
Narayandas It laid down that the bar created under Section 195
6 of 10
CRM-M-22106
22106-2023 with connected matters
Cr.P.C. is on taking cognizance of the offence
offences mentioned in Chapter XIV of
the Code in the absence of complaint in writing by a public servant, and not
on registration or investigation of a case by the police. Therefore, the stage of
complying with the procedure mandated in the section is when cognizance of
the offence is to be taken by the Court, and not at the time of lodging the FIR..
In this regard the
t following paragraphs of the judgment are relevant:
48. Thus, in view of the above, the law can be summarized to
the effect that there must be a complaint by the public servant
who was voluntarily obstructed in the discharge of his public
functions. The complaint must be in writing. The provisions of
Section 195 Cr.P.C. 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.
49. xxx xxx xxx
50. The heading of Chapter XIV of the Code of Criminal
Procedure is "Conditions Requisite for Initiation of Proceedings".
The first provision in this Chapter is Section 190 and it deals with
the power of the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offences.
There are some other provisions in this Chapter which create an
em
embargo on the power of the Court to take cognizance of
offences committed by persons enumerated therein except on the
complaint in writing of certain specified persons or with the
previous sanction of certain specified authorities.
51. A plain reading of Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. would
indicate that no Court can take cognizance of an offence
punishable under Section 186 of the I.P.C, except upon a
complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some
other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate.
The opening words of the Section are "No Court shall take
cognizance", and consequently, the bar created by the provisions
7 of 10
CRM-M-22106
22106-2023 with connected matters
is against taking of cognizance by the Court. There is no bar
against the registration of a criminal
iminal case or investigation by the
police agency or submission of a report by the police on
completion of the investigation, as contemplated by Section 173
of the Cr.P.C.
8. Firstly, in the facts of the instant cases, it is to be examined as to
whether the FIR in question is in violation of provisions of Section 195 (1) (a)
Cr.P.C. and liable to be quashed as such. In terms of the settled proposition of
law, as aforementioned, the mandatory procedural compliance under Section
195 (1) (a) is to be seen at the time of taking cognizance of offences by the
Magistrate. In this case cognizance has already been taken and charge has
been framed vide impugned order dated 18.03.2023
18.03.2023. And it is not the
petitioner's case that a complaint by the public servant had not been filed
before the Magistrate took cognizance.
9. Secondly, it needs examination, as contended by learned counsel
for the petitioners, whether any prima facie case is made out against the
petitioners even if the allegations are taken to be true. It is no longer res
integra that an FIR can be quashed if it does not prima facie disclose
commission of any of the alleged offences by the accused. As per the
allegations, the petitioners have been part of a protest of Aam Admi Party
(AAP) workers
worker moving towards official residence of the Punjab Governor at
Chandigarh. The police had barricaded the road and told them that a gathering
of more than five persons in the city was in violation of notification issued
under Section 144 Cr.P.C. It is further alleged that the petitioners, being
leaders of the group of people protesting there, instigated them, and on being
stopped from marching ahead all of them started bullyragging the police
force, and attempted to break the barricades. During all this, some of the
officials sustained injuries. The chargesheet
chargesheet, dated 10.04.2022, has been
8 of 10
CRM-M-22106
22106-2023 with connected matters
presented against the petitioners under Sections 186, 188, 332 and 353 IPC,,
without disclosing any material establishing their involvement in the offences
alleged. Besides,
Besid it states that after identification of the accused/petitioners
and 500-600 workers of AAP, supplementary challan will be presented..
Therefore, concededly the petitioners could not be identified.
9.1. Apparently, nobody has been named from amongst the persons
present who allegedly pelted stones on the police force. Also, it is not the case
that the petitioners asked them to do so. The nature of alleged instigation by
the petitioners has also not been mentioned; nor have specific words or
gestures of any kind been attributed to them. Therefore, there is no basis to
attribute the alleged act of shoving and bullying by the mob to the petitioners.
Resultantly, it is a case where no act, voluntary or otherwise, has been
attributed to the petitioners. Instead, the allegations are that being stopped
from marching ahead the mob turned violent.. The nature of injuries suffered
by the officials are, abrasions, pain and small laceration. The investigating
agency has failed to come up with any material indicating any definite role to
the petitioners in this regard as well. Section 332 IPC pertains to 'voluntarily
oluntarily
causing hurt to deter public servant from discharging of his duty' and Section
353 IPC to 'a
assault or use of criminal force to deter public servant from
discharge of his duty'. The petitioners have not been specifically accused of
voluntarily causing any assault, hurt or using criminal force to deter public
servant from discharging duties. The nature of injuries endured by the
officials also dispels any role to the petitioners, as the same appear to be a
result of jostling and pushing by the mob in an attempt to break through the
barricades. More so, when there is no allegation that the protesters were
armed or carrying
rrying any sticks, stones, etc. Further, in the absence of any
9 of 10
CRM-M-22106
22106-2023 with connected matters
-10
10-
allegation of commission of the offences by an unlawful assembly, as
chargesheet has not been filed under Sections 147 and 149 IPC, the petitioners
cannot be held liable for the alleged acts of causing hurt or assault by any of
the protestors, even if the allegations are accepted as true. There cannot be any
constructive liability on them, as common object is not even alleged.
Consequently, ingredients of none of the offences can be said to have been
made out against any of the petitioners even prima facie. And there was no
ground to take cognizance of the offences against them or frame the charge
vide impugned order dated 18.03.2023.
10. In view of the discussion, these petitions are allowed. FIR no. 76,,
dated 06.10.2021,
06.10.2021 chargesheet/final report dated 10.04.2022 and the order
framing charge dated 18.03.2023, with all subsequent proceedings, are hereby
quashed qua the petitioners.
11. A photocopy of this order be placed on the connected files.
(TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA)
JUDGE
29.11.2025
Ad
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable Yes
10 of 10
