In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has laid down important guidelines on the interpretation of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), which governs the cognizance of offences relating to public servants and the administration of justice.
The ruling came in Devendra Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr., where a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan held that courts cannot bypass the statutory safeguard under Section 195 CrPC by splitting offences arising out of the same set of facts.
The Court also clarified that while severance of offences may be permissible in some cases, it cannot be allowed where it effectively undermines the mandatory requirement of a written complaint by a public servant under Section 195(1)(a)(i) CrPC.
This judgment provides much-needed clarity on the scope of Section 195 and its interplay with Sections 172–188 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deal with offences against lawful authority of public servants.
Background of the Case
The matter arose from an incident in 2013, when Ravi Dutt Sharma, a process server, alleged mistreatment at the Nand Nagri Police Station, Delhi while serving court summons and warrants. According to Sharma, the constables initially refused to accept the documents. When he approached Station House Officer (SHO) Devendra Kumar, he was allegedly abused, forced to stand with raised hands, made to sit on the floor for hours, and restrained until a Head Constable finally accepted the papers.
Sharma reported the incident to the District and Sessions Judge, Shahdara, who directed the Administrative Civil Judge to file a private complaint under Section 195 CrPC.
Following this, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) ordered registration of an FIR under:
- Section 186 IPC (obstructing public servant in discharge of duties)
- Section 341 IPC (wrongful restraint)
- Section 342 IPC (wrongful confinement)
Devendra Kumar challenged the proceedings before the Sessions Court and later the Delhi High Court, but both appeals were dismissed. He then approached the Supreme Court, questioning the legality of the prosecution and the applicability of Section 195 CrPC.
Supreme Court’s Key Observations
The Court made significant findings, both on the procedural lapses in the case and the substantive interpretation of Section 195 CrPC.
1. Courts cannot bypass Section 195 CrPC by splitting offences
The Court clarified that when an offence squarely falls within Section 195(1)(a)(i) CrPC, which requires a complaint by a public servant, the Court cannot bypass this safeguard by splitting charges and proceeding with related offences from the same facts.
“If in truth and substance, an offence falls in the category of Section 195(1)(a)(i), it is not open to the court to undertake the exercise of splitting them up and proceeding further against the accused for other distinct offences disclosed in the same set of facts.”
2. Severance is not always barred
The bench noted that severance of distinct offences is permissible in limited circumstances depending on the facts, allegations, and evidence. However, this cannot be done when the purpose is to circumvent Section 195’s safeguards.
3. Six guiding principles laid down
The Court formulated six guiding principles for future cases involving offences under Sections 172–188 IPC:
- Mandatory written complaint – Offences under Sections 172–188 IPC require a written complaint from the concerned public servant or their superior.
- No bypassing through splitting – Courts cannot avoid Section 195 by breaking facts into separate charges.
- Case-specific approach – Splitting offences is not absolutely barred, but must be carefully assessed in each case.
- Twin test for severance – Courts must check if additional offences are framed only to bypass Section 195, and whether the facts truly disclose an independent offence.
- Same transaction rule – If other offences are closely linked to Section 195 offences, they too may fall under its ambit.
- Police investigation not barred – Sections 195 and 340 CrPC do not stop police from investigating. However, cognizance by courts is restricted unless a proper complaint is made.
4. Procedural errors in lower courts
The Court held that while the Administrative Civil Judge was correct in filing a complaint under Section 195, the CMM erred by ordering a police investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC. Instead, the Magistrate should have taken cognizance directly under Section 204 CrPC.
This misstep caused 12 years of delay, undermining the very dignity of the judicial process. The Court strongly criticized this lapse:
“Look at the mess created by one and all over a period of twelve years. We are talking about upholding and maintaining the dignity of court. However, it has been twelve years but no one has been able to uphold the dignity of the court by proceeding in the right direction.”
5. Obstruction under Section 186 IPC is not limited to physical force
The Court clarified that “obstruction” does not require physical acts. Abuse, threats, or wrongful prevention that hinders a public servant from discharging duties is sufficient to constitute an offence under Section 186 IPC.
Outcome of the Case
- The Supreme Court disposed of the petition, permitting the petitioner to raise objections regarding the bar of Section 195 CrPC at the trial stage.
- It directed that the Registry circulate the judgment to all High Courts, ensuring uniform application of the principles laid down.
Advocates Nikilesh Ramachandran, SC Sagar, Shubham Seth, Ananya V Mehra, and Soumya Saisa Das represented the petitioner.
Legal Significance of the Ruling
This ruling is a crucial development in criminal procedure jurisprudence, as it reinforces the protection granted to public servants under Section 195 CrPC and prevents misuse of process by splitting charges.
1. Reinforces judicial safeguards
Section 195 CrPC was designed to prevent frivolous or retaliatory prosecutions against public servants. The Court’s judgment ensures that this statutory safeguard is preserved.
2. Provides clarity on splitting of offences
By laying down guiding principles, the judgment strikes a balance—recognizing that in some cases severance may be justified, but not when it circumvents legal protections.
3. Broader scope of “obstruction” clarified
By holding that obstruction under Section 186 IPC includes threats and abuse, the Court expanded the understanding of how public servants may be hindered in performing their lawful duties.
4. Lessons on procedural discipline
The judgment underscores the importance of following correct procedural channels. The 12-year delay in this case highlights how misapplication of procedural law can undermine justice.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Devendra Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. is a landmark interpretation of Section 195 CrPC, preventing courts from bypassing statutory safeguards by splitting offences.
By laying down six guiding principles, the Court has provided a framework that balances the rights of accused persons with the need to protect public servants and maintain the dignity of judicial processes.
This judgment will guide courts across the country in handling offences under Sections 172–188 IPC and ensure that prosecutions adhere to both substantive justice and procedural fairness.
