[Cites 21, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manjit Singh Alias Manjit Singh ... vs Union Territory Chandigarh on 29 November, 2025
CRM-M-15706
15706-2023 with connected matters -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
290
Reserved on: 04.11.2025
Pronounced on: 29.11.2025
Uploaded on: 29.11.2025
1. M-15706-2023
CRM-M
BHAGWANT MANN AND ANOTHER ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
U.T. CHANDIGARH ...Respondent(s)
2. CRM-M
M-14540-2023
BALJINDER KAUR AND ANOTHER ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
U.T. CHANDIGARH ...Respondent(s)
3. M-22450-2023
CRM-M
MANJIT SINGH ALIAS MANJIT SINGH BILASPUR
...Petitioner(s)
Versus
UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH
...Respondent(s)
4. CRM-M
M-24972-2023
HARPAL SINGH ALIAS HARPAL SINGH CHEEMA AND ANOTHER
...Petitioner(s)
Versus
U.T. 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).
1 of 13
::: Downloaded on - 29-11-2025 20:54:48 :::
CRM-M-15706
15706-2023 with connected matters -2-
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-15706--
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.0001 dated
10.01.2020, under Section 147, 149, 332 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code,,
1860 (for short, IPC) (offence under Section 188 IPC was deleted), Police
Station North Sector 3, Chandigarh, along with all consequential proceedings
arising therefrom, including the final report/chargesheet under Section 173
Cr.P.C., dated 15.07.2021, qua the petitioners.
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 L/C Manpreet Kaur 4546/CP PS-03 UT
CHD, AGE 30 YEARS, stated that I am posted as L/C at Police
Station 03 CHD. Today in connection with the rally of Aam
Aadmi Party (Branch Punjab), I was posted on DUTY at the exit
gate of MLA HOSTEL SEC-4 CHD. Time was around 01:00 PM
that the workers of Aam Aadmi Party (Branch Punjab) gathered
in the ground of MLA HOSTEL SEC-4 PB and Aam Aadmi
Party's leaders, MP & MLAs (1) BHAGWANT SINGH MANN,
(2) HARPAL SINGH CHEEMA, (3) MASTER BALDEV
SINGH, (4) BALJINDER KAUR, (5) MEET HAYER, (6)
MANJIT SINGH BILASPURI, (7), AMAN ARORA, (8)
NARINDER SINGH SHER GILL, (9) JAI SINGH RODI, (10)
2 of 13
CRM-M-15706
15706-2023 with connected matters -3-
SARABJIT MANUKA by addressing about 750/800 workers
and inciting them to surround the CM PUNJAB residence and
shouting slogans of Punjab Government Murdabad, they came
forward towards the exit gate carrying banners and flags, where
Sh. Vinit Kumar IPS, SP CITY, SHRI RAJIV TIWARI DUTY
MAGISTRATE, SHRI KRISHAN KUMAR SDPO CENTRAL,
SHRI JASPAL SINGH SHO PS
PS-03 CHD, INSP. MALKIT
SINGH, INSP. GURJEET KAUR, INSP. POONAM DILAWRI,
INSP. RAM RATTAN and the entire force were posted at
barricading by maintaining LAW ORDER. They asked the
gathering coming from the front to stop at barricade and told
them that your gathering is against the law as the same has not
been allowed by DM CHD Sahib. That your gathering is
unconstitutional, therefore, don't try to move forward by crossing
the barricade, whatever your demand letter is, you can give
demand letter to the government and 2/3 of your representatives
can take your demand letter and walk with us to CM PUNJAB
RESIDENCE because assembly of more than 05 persons other
than Rally Ground SEC-25 CHD is violation under Section 144
Cr.P.C. At around 2:30 PM on being instigated and encouraged
by the above said leaders of Aam Aadmi Party, 750/800 workers
including all the above said leaders started pushing and shoving
the police force deployed on the spot and while trying to destroy
stroy
barricading, they started moving forward. Then according to the
orders of the DUTY MAGISTRATE, water was lightly showered
on the above said furious mob, then the furious mob suddenly
started pelting stones on the police force, during which apart
from me, SHRI KRISHAN SDPO CENTRAL, INSP MALKIT
SINGH 312/CHG, and CT VINIT KUMAR 304/CP have also
sustained injuries. That my medical examination should be
conducted and legal action should be taken against the leaders
and workers of Aam Aadmi Party (Branch Punjab). Statement
has been recorded, read out, heard and is correct. Sd/ L/C
MANPREET KAUR D.O.B 03
03-03-1988 PS-03 CHD DATE
3 of 13
CRM-M-15706
15706-2023 with connected matters -4-
10.01.2020, МОВ. NO.9501164192 ATTESTED BY ASI
SATISH KUMAR PS-03 CHD DATE 10.01.2020.
Police Proceedings:...From the contents of statement prima-facie
facie
offence u/s's 147, 149, 332, 353, 188 of IPC was found to be
made out. Therefore, for registration of the case against leaders
and workers of Aam Aadmi Party, the statement is being sent to
Police Station by hand by C. SATYWAN 4706/CP.
3.1. As per the Medico Legal Reports (MLRs), Annexure P-3, the
injuries suffered by the officials have been declared simple in nature.
In case of complainant, Manpreet Kaur, the injuries are:
Sr. No. Injuries Marked
1 Red abrasion over right cheek. No
2 Red abrasion over middle finger of right hand. No
3 Red abrasion over index finger of right hand. No.
4 Pain and Swelling present over right hand. No
(Advised ortho consultation)
In case of Krishan Kumar, Sub
Sub-Divisional Police Officer, the
injuries are:
Sr. No. Injuries Marked
1 Red abrasion over left hand middle finger of No
approx 2x1 cm. Swelling present. Painful
movement. (Advised X ray left hand AP
Oblique, Ortho consultation).
2 C/o pain in jaw left side. Swelling present. No
(Advised Dental consultation)
3 C/o Pain in left shoulder, Painful movement. No.
(Advised X-ray left shoulder AP Lateral,
Ortho consultation)
In case of Malkit Singh, Inspector, the injuries are:
Sr. No. Injuries Marked
1 Red abrasion over both hands dorsal surface of No
approx 2x1 cm.
2 C/o pain in right shoulder. (Advised Ortho No
consultation)
3 Red abrasion over neck of approx 1x1 cm. No
4 C/o pain in left elbow. (Advised ortho No
consultation)
5 Alleged history of human bite of left forearm. No
Category one.
4 of 13
CRM-M-15706
15706-2023 with connected matters -5-
In case of Vineet, the injuries are:
Sr. No. Injuries Marked
1 C/o pain in right hand. (Advised X ray right No
wrist AP view, Ortho consultation)
2 C/o pain in back of neck (Advised X ray No
cervical spine, Ortho consultation)
3.2. After completion of the investigation
investigation, challan/chargesheet, dated
15.07.2021, Annexure P-2, was presented in the Court against the petitioners
under Sections 147, 149, 332 and 353 of IPC. The chargesheet recorded that
the orders dated 10.01.2020 under Section 144 Cr.P.C. had not been issued by
the Deputy Commissioner. And on the advice of District Attorney, offence
under Section 188 IPC was deleted from the case.
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 are either abrasions, swellings or pains in different
parts of the body which have been declared simple in nature. Further, in the
absence of any order under Section 144 Cr.P.C.
Cr.P.C., the police could not have
prevented the petitioners from protesting peacefully or carrying out the
demonstration,, nor could the assembly of persons/protestors/workers of the
political party be termed as unlawful assembly. The protest march had been
organised against the hike in electricity tariffs by the Government, and they
had the fundamental right to protest under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
It is also contended that genesis of the case against the petitioners is
commission of offence under Section 188 IPC, i.e., disobeyance to an orderr
lawfully promulgated
promul by a public servant, but it has been deleted from the FIR
only to evade the mandatory procedure under Section 195 Cr.P.C. Had the
offence been there, the Court could not have taken cognizance against the
5 of 13
CRM-M-15706
15706-2023 with connected matters -6-
petitioners except on a complaint by a public
ublic servant as laid down by the
provisions of Section 195(1)(a) Cr.P.C., and undisputably there is no
complaint against them. This deletion is therefore illegal, and the petitioners
could not have been implicated in other/remaining offences. In support of the
contention, learned senior counsel has relied upon the Supreme Court
judgments in Basir-Ul-Huq
Basir and others v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1953 SC
293 and State of Karnatka v. Hemareddy, (1981
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.
petitioners
5. Learned Public Prosecutors, on the contrary, contended that the
petitioners along with other protestors were leading an unlawful political
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;;
also, the FIR cannot
can be quashed because Section 188 IPC has been deleted.
The provisions
ns 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.
6 of 13
CRM-M-15706
15706-2023 with connected matters -7-
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 two issues:
(a
a) Requirement to follow the procedure laid down under Section
195 Cr.P.C. when there are composite allegations pertaining to
the offences for which procedure has been mandated in the
section as well as other offences which are beyond the restrains
section,
of this mandated procedure;
(b
b) The stage when compliance of the procedure under Section
195 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 On issue (a) it held that in case the accused have
statedly committed offences, (i) which fall within the scope of Section 195
Cr.P.C., like the ones punishable under Sections 172 to 188 IPC, (ii) as also
other offences which do not fall under its scope, the prosecution for the latter
er
category of offences can be launched separately without following the
mandatory procedure laid down under Section 195 Cr.P.C. However, in case
these two categories of offences form part of the same transaction and it is not
possible to split-up
split the same, the State cannot be permitted to exclude the
offence requiring
quiring mandatory procedure under Section 195 Cr.P.C. and
7 of 13
CRM-M-15706
15706-2023 with connected matters -8-
prosecute the accused for the remaining cognizable offences. Such a course
cannot be permitted to be adopted as it is only for the purpose of avoiding the
rigors of Section 195 Cr.P.C. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment holding
thus are as under:
41. While deciding whether the distinct offences can be split
up, courts must remain circumspect. It is agreed that, the law is
not that once the facts of a given case disclose an offence falling
within the scope of Section 195 Cr.P.C. and also other offences,
prosecution can be launched regarding the latter only upon the
complaint of the court or the lawful authority concerned. To hold
otherwise would be to extend the scope of Section 195 Cr.P.C. to
regions and horizons not contemplated by the legislature. The
facts in a case may give rise to distinct offences including
offences against the authority of public servants or against public
justice, as also offences against private individuals; the bar under
Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. cannot, in such circumstances, affect
the offences other than those against public authority or public
justice. Prosecution for such other offences does not require the
instrumentality of the public authority or court. However, the
position may be different when during the course of the same
transaction offences falling within the two categories are
committed. In such cases, it may not be possible to split up the
transaction, and to hold that there can be valid prosecution for
offences not mentioned in Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. without the
written complaint of the public authority or the court, as the case
may be. Courts must be able to see through any attempt to render
Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. nugatory by hiding the real nature of
the transaction by verbal jugglery. If in principle and substance
the offence alleged falls within the categories mentioned in
Section 195, the operation of the bar cannot be avoided; if in
essence the alleged offence falls outside the categories, the bar
would not operate. At the same time, if the facts give rise to
distinct offences, some attracting
ttracting the operation of Section 195
8 of 13
CRM-M-15706
15706-2023 with connected matters -9-
and others not so, the bar can operate only regarding the former
and not regarding the latter.
42. Therefore, the courts must ascertain whether during the
course of a single transaction, the offences falling within both the
categories are committed, in which case it would be difficult to
split up the offences or, whether there are two different
transactions which occur successively, nevertheless separately
and distinctively, in which case the offences may be split up. One
another aspect that may be looked into is whether, apart from the
offences committed in contempt of lawful authority of public
servants, or against public justice or, relating to documents given
in evidence which fall under the scope of Section 195 Cr.P.C.,
the other distinct offences are of such a nature that private
individuals are aggrieved. In such a scenario, it would not be
reasonable to bar a private prosecution by the aggrieved
individual for the reason that the public official or the court
concerned has also not instituted a complaint.
7.2. Further, on issue (b) the Supreme Court laid down that the bar
created under Section 195 Cr.P.C. is on taking cognizance of the offencess
mentioned in Chapter XIV of the Code in the absence of complaint in writing
by a public servant,
servant and not on registration oor 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 following paragraphs of the
judgment are relevant:
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
9 of 13
CRM-M-15706
15706-2023 with connected matters -10-
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
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
is against taking of cognizance by the Court. There is no bar
against the registration of a criminal 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; and whether the offences alleged
against the petitioners arise out of the same transaction and could not have
been split-up by the investigating agency to lodge the FIR in question. These
are two inter-related
related issues; in case splitting--up the offences by deleting the
offence under Section 188 was wrong, the consequential requirement would
10 of 13
CRM-M-15706
15706-2023 with connected matters -11-
be to comply with the mandatory procedure under Section 195(1)(a). In terms
of the settled proposition of law, as aforementioned, the procedural
compliance is to be seen at the time of taking cognizance of offences by the
Magistrate, and that stage has not reached yet. Therefore, the perceived non--
compliance with the provisions of this section is no ground to seek quashing
of the FIR by the petitioners.
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 Chief
Minister at Chandigarh. The police had barrica
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
the party workers and all of them started pushing and shoving the police force..
On shooting of water on them the furious mob suddenly started pelting stones..
During all this, some of the officials sustained injuries. The chargesheet, dated
15.07.2021, has
as been presented against the petitioners under Sections 147,
149, 332 and 353 IPC, without disclosing any material establishing
involvement of the petitioners in the offences alleged. Besides, it states that
after identification
ation of the accused/petitioners and 750-800 workers of AAP,,
supplementary challan will be given. Therefore, concededly the petitioners
could not be identified.
11 of 13
CRM-M-15706
15706-2023 with connected matters -12-
9.1. T
There was no reason for the police to stop the protestors from
marching ahead towards the Chief Minister's residence, as admittedly
prohibitory order under Section 144 Cr.P.C. had not been issued. Nobody has
been named from amongst the persons present who allegedly pelted stones on
the police force. Besides, 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
no have specific words or gestures of any kind been attributed to
them. Therefore, there is no basis to ascribe the alleged act of throwing stones
by the mob to the petitioners. It is a case where no act, voluntary or otherwise,,
has been attributed to the petitioners. Instead
Instead, the allegations are that on
shooting mild water on the mob they started pelting stones which hit the
officials present there. The immediate trigger for the mob turning furious and
behaving the way it did, appears to be shooting of water on them as per orderss
of the Duty Magistrate. The nature of injuries suffered by the officials are,
abrasions, pain and swelling which could be the result of shoving and jostling
by the mob in an effort to push its way ahead
ahead. 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 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 the public
servants from discharging duties. The nature of injuries suffered by the
officials also dispels any role of the petitioners, as the same appear to be a
result of grappling and pushing, as discussed hereinbefore. More so, when
there is no allegation that the protesters were armed or carrying any sticks,
12 of 13
CRM-M-15706
15706-2023 with connected matters -13-
stones, etc. Further,
Further Section 147 IPC provides punishment for rioting. The
offence is defined under Section 146 to mean 'whenever force or violence is
used by an unlawful assembly, or by any member thereof, every member of the
assembly will be guilty of the offence'. Section 149 IPC is to the effect, 'if an
offence has been committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in
prosecution of the common object of that assembly
assembly, ... every person who, at
the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly,
is guilty of that offence'. Evidently, unlawful assembly is the sine qua non for
the offences under Sections 146 and 149 IPC. And in the instant petitions it is
not the respondent's case that the assembly of protesters which used the force
was unlawful, as the prohibitory orders under Section 144 had not been
issued. Consequently, ingredients of none of the offences alleged can be said
to have been made out against any of the petitioners even prima facie.
10. In view of the discussion, these petitions are allowed. FIR no. 01,,
dated 10.01.2020 and chargesheet/final report dated 15.07.2021, 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
13 of 13
