Only the Public Servant Can Complain: Supreme Court Quashes Section 182 IPC Case Without a Section 195 Complaint

Case at a glance: The Supreme Court has quashed proceedings under Section 182 IPC (false information to a public servant) pending before the JMFC, Nahan, holding that cognizance was barred by Section 195 CrPC. No written complaint had been made by the public servants who received the allegedly false complaints or their superiors, and the Women Police Station officer was neither.

The appellant is the sister of the second respondent’s late husband. The two families had been in conflict and had filed criminal cases against each other; after the husband’s death, the disputes were settled by a settlement deed dated 20 June 2024. One proceeding under Section 182 IPC (Police Kalendra No. 4 of 2021) remained pending before the JMFC, Nahan, District Sirmaur.

The case arose from the second respondent’s complaint to the Women Police Station, Nahan, alleging that the appellant had made false complaints to various government departments against her and her family to pressure her into withdrawing her complaints. The High Court dismissed the appellant’s Section 482 CrPC petition, holding that a Section 182 offence lies between the offender and the public servant, so the private settlement did not end it.

The Key Question Before the Court

Could a court take cognizance of a Section 182 IPC offence on a police report arising from a private party’s complaint, without a written complaint by the public servant concerned?

Section 195 CrPC and Who May Complain

The Court observed that the High Court had rejected the petition without looking at the complaint itself. It accepted that a Section 182 offence is between the offender and the public servant, but that is precisely why Section 195 CrPC requires a written complaint by the public servant concerned or an administratively superior public servant before cognizance can be taken of offences under Sections 172 to 188 IPC.

None of the officers in the departments to whom the allegedly false complaints were made had filed such a complaint. The officer in charge of the Women Police Station was neither the public servant who received the statements nor his administrative superior. Calling the complaint “ill-motivated,” the Court held that no cognizance could have been taken on the material placed before the magistrate.

What the Court Actually Held

• The proceedings before the JMFC, Nahan in Police Kalendra No. 4 of 2021 were quashed, whatever their stage.
• Cognizance of Section 182 IPC needs a written complaint by the public servant concerned or his administrative superior.
• A police officer to whom a private party complained does not satisfy Section 195 CrPC.
• The appeal was allowed.

Why This Judgment Matters

• It reinforces the Section 195 CrPC bar against private-driven Section 182 prosecutions.
• It shows how the bar operates even where a police inquiry found the earlier complaints false.
• It cautions High Courts to examine the actual complaint before refusing to quash.

What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?

For Defence Counsel

• Check who authored the complaint in any Section 172–188 IPC prosecution.
• Raise the Section 195 bar at the threshold through Section 482 (now Section 528 BNSS).

For Complainants

• False complaints to departments must be taken up by those departments’ officers through a written complaint.

Key Takeaways

Frequently Asked Questions

No. The Court decided on the Section 195 CrPC bar and found the complaint ill-motivated.

The order refers only to ‘the High Court’; given the case was pending at Nahan, it would be the Himachal Pradesh High Court, but the text does not name it.

The extracted order does not cite any decisions.

Conclusion

Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →