Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana Single Bench of Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya declined to quash a 2015 FIR arising from a protest in Ludhiana linked to demonstrations over the Bargari sacrilege incidents, in which a former MLA and several associates are alleged to have defied prohibitory orders and used force against police personnel. The Court permitted the criminal proceedings to continue, holding that Section 195 CrPC, which restricts courts from taking cognizance of specified offences against public justice or official authority without a written complaint from the concerned public servant or court, must be invoked at the cognizance stage before the trial court.

The petition was filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of an FIR registered for alleged commission of offences under Sections 186, 332, 353, 188 and 149 IPC. The FIR arose from a protest held in Ludhiana following the incident of sacrilege of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. The allegations recorded in the FIR stated that a political leader, along with supporters, violated prohibitory orders issued under Section 144 Cr.P.C., resisted arrest, and directed his driver to run a vehicle over the police party. Witness statements and translated versions of the FIR were placed on record.

Also Read: High Courts’ Prior Permission Mandatory To Withdraw MPs/MLAs’ Criminal Cases: Supreme Court Upholds Allahabad High Court Order Refusing To Quash Arms Act Case Against Former Lok Sabha MP

A Commission constituted to inquire into alleged false FIRs examined the matter and recommended cancellation of the FIR only against one accused. A cancellation report was filed, but the Magistrate declined to accept it and ordered further investigation, resulting in a supplementary chargesheet under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. Petitioners contended absence of incriminating material, absence of Magistrate’s findings against them, and non-compliance with Section 195 Cr.P.C., asserting that no complaint by a public servant had been filed. The State argued that a prima facie case existed and that Section 353 IPC covered the alleged acts of assault or use of criminal force against public servants.

The Court recorded that the allegations indicated that petitioner no.2 was “leading a protest at Ludhiana” and had “allegedly violated certain prohibitory orders issued under Section 144 Cr.P.C.” and instructed the driver “to run the vehicle over the police party,” while the police “saved themselves from this attack with great difficulty.”

It recorded that an Inquiry Commission had recommended cancellation of the FIR only against one accused, stating this recommendation “was not binding on the Magistrate; besides, it was to cancel the FIR only against one of the accused.” The Court observed that the order dated 06.03.2019 directing further investigation could not be faulted.

On the issue of Section 195 Cr.P.C., the Court cited the Supreme Court’s exposition in Devendra Kumar, noting that the bar under the section operates only at the stage of taking cognizance. It quoted: “the bar created by the provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C. is against taking of cognizance by the Court… and not on registration or investigation of a case by the police.” Further, “the stage of complying with the procedure… is when cognizance of the offence is to be taken by the Court, and not at the time of lodging of the FIR.”

The Court reproduced the Supreme Court’s statement that “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.” It also referred to Section 195’s opening words: “No Court shall take cognizance.”

It recorded that procedural compliance “is to be seen at the time of taking cognizance of offences by the Magistrate, and that stage has not reached as yet.” Therefore, the perceived non-compliance did not justify quashing of the FIR.

Also Read: Punjab And Haryana High Court Directs ₹5 Lakh Compensation To Retrenched Worker Denied Absorption For Nearly 3 Decades Despite Supreme Court Directions

The Court directed that the petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners “to raise the issue regarding bar of Section 195 Cr.P.C. before the trial Court at appropriate stage, if so advised.”

“Therefore, the perceived non-compliance with the provisions of this section is no ground to seek quashing of the FIR in question at this stage. In view of the discussion, the petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioners to raise the issue… before the trial Court at appropriate stage.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. A.P.S. Deol, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vishal R. Lamba, Advocate, Mr. Arun Goyat, Advocate, and Ms. Dilpreet Kaur, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Satjot Singh Chahal, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab

Case Title: Daljit Singh Grewal alias Bhola and others v. State of Punjab and others

Neutral Citation: 2025: PHHC:165841

Case Number: CRM-M-23232-2023

Bench: Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya