Devendra Kumar v. The State (NCT of Delhi)
Background
A process server who went to a Delhi police station to serve court summons and warrants alleged he was misbehaved with, made to stand with hands raised and sit on the floor for hours by the SHO, Inspector Devendra Kumar, before the documents were finally accepted. On a complaint routed through the District & Sessions Judge, a Magistrate ordered registration of an FIR against the SHO under Sections 186 (obstructing a public servant) and 341 (wrongful restraint) IPC. The SHO challenged this all the way to the Delhi High Court, arguing that Section 195 CrPC required a written complaint from the public servant himself (here, the process server) before a court could take cognizance of a Section 186 offence, and that the FIR route was barred.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court examined in detail the scope of Section 195(1)(a) and (b) CrPC, which restricts courts from taking cognizance of certain offences against public justice without a complaint by the concerned public servant or court. It held that Section 195 does not control or restrict the police's power to investigate an FIR at the investigation stage: the bar only kicks in when a court is about to take cognizance. It also clarified that where an FIR discloses offences distinct from those listed in Section 195(1)(a)(i), courts must apply a twin test: whether the additional offences were invoked merely to evade the Section 195 bar, and whether the facts, in substance, disclose only the barred offence. The Court left it open to the petitioner to raise the Section 195 bar before the trial court after investigation is complete and a chargesheet is filed.
Lesson Learnt
Police can investigate and register an FIR even for conduct that overlaps with offences requiring a public servant's complaint (like obstructing an official): the special complaint requirement only becomes a bar at the stage a court is asked to take cognizance and put an accused on trial, not at the investigation stage.