Devendra Kumar v. The State (NCT of Delhi) & Another, 2025

A court process server alleged that while serving summons and warrants, he was mistreated by the Station House Officer (SHO), Devendra Kumar at a Delhi police station.

The SHO was accused of abusing, forcing the process server to stand with raised hands as punishment, and detaining him for hours, preventing him from performing his official duties.

The process server reported this to the District Judge, who referred it to an Administrative Civil Judge.

The Civil Judge filed a written complaint under Section 195(1)(a) Cr.P.C. before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM).

Instead of taking direct cognizance, the CMM directed police to register an FIR under Sections 186 (obstruction) and 341 (wrongful restraint) IPC.

The SHO challenged this FIR in the Sessions Court and High Court, both of which dismissed his plea.

The SHO then moved to the Supreme Court.

Whether Section 195 Cr.P.C. bars a magistrate from taking cognizance of offences under Sections 172–188 IPC without a written complaint by the concerned public servant?

Whether the bar under Section 195 extends to other offences closely connected with those provisions, and whether such offences can be split up to evade the bar?

Whether the magistrate was correct in directing police to register an FIR instead of directly taking cognizance under Section 195?

What is the scope of the police's power to investigate offences covered under Section 195?

What is the interpretation of "obstruction" under Section 186 IPC?

The Supreme Court clarified that Section 195 Cr.P.C. mandates a written complaint by the public servant concerned or their superior before a court can take cognizance of offences under Sections 172–188 IPC.

This bar also applies to offences so closely connected with those provisions that they cannot be split to avoid the mandatory complaint.

The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate’s (CMM’s) direction for FIR registration was criticized because the CMM could have taken direct cognizance under Section 195.

However, the Court did not quash the FIR, leaving the SHO free to raise the bar of Section 195 at trial.

The Court emphasized that police can investigate offences under Section 195, but a magistrate cannot take cognizance on a police report alone; it requires a written complaint.

The Court ruled that where offences like Section 186 IPC (obstruction) are connected to others like Section 341 IPC (wrongful restraint), they must be tried together unless they are truly distinct and unconnected.

The Court reinforced procedural safeguards ensuring public servants are protected from frivolous or vexatious prosecutions by requiring a formal complaint under Section 195.

The ruling prevents the circumvention of Section 195 by splitting offences to avoid the mandatory complaint.

By distinguishing investigation from cognizance, the Court balances police powers with the need for judicial oversight.

The interpretation of obstruction under Section 186 IPC is broad, ensuring protection of public servants from any form of interference or impediment in their official functions.

The judgment provides clear guidelines for courts to assess whether offences are distinct or closely connected to maintain the integrity of the complaint requirement under Section 195.