Case at a Glance
Members of a tribal youth organisation gathered at a police station in Barwani district in July 2024 to demand cancellation of an FIR against members of their community. The SHO registered an FIR under Section 223 BNS for disobeying the District Magistrate’s prohibitory order under Section 144 CrPC, and Section 126(2) BNS was added later. The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that Section 215 BNSS bars cognizance of a Section 223 BNS offence without a written complaint by the public servant concerned, and that the Section 126(2) allegation arose from the same transaction. It quashed the FIR, charge-sheet and cognizance order, noting that a bright student should not be dragged into criminal proceedings over such a matter.
After an FIR was registered on 30.06.2024 against some members of a tribal community, members of Jay Adivasi Yuva Shakti (JAYS) applied to the SHO, Police Station Palsud, on 06.07.2024 seeking its cancellation. According to the prosecution, they took out a procession with banners and slogans and gathered at the police station without permission from the SDO, in breach of a Section 144 CrPC order issued by the District Magistrate, Barwani. The SHO registered an FIR the same day under Section 223 BNS against seven persons, including the petitioner, a student. Section 126(2) BNS (wrongful restraint) was added in the final report.
The trial court took cognizance on 16.12.2024, and according to the State recorded on 13.10.2025 that there was sufficient material to frame charges. The petitioner moved the High Court, arguing that no court could take cognizance of a Section 223 BNS offence without a written complaint from the public servant concerned under Section 215 BNSS, and that he had been implicated merely for being a JAYS member. The State argued that the objection was not raised at the cognizance stage, and that under Devendra Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2025) 08 SC CK 0167 distinct offences could be tried without such a complaint.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can a court take cognizance of disobedience of a prohibitory order under Section 223 BNS, and of a connected offence under Section 126(2) BNS, on a police report alone, without a written complaint by the public servant whose order was disobeyed?
Section 215 BNSS: A Mandatory Bar
The Court noted that Section 215(1)(a) BNSS (corresponding to Section 195 CrPC) prohibits courts from taking cognizance of offences under Sections 206 to 223 BNS except on a written complaint by the public servant concerned or an authorised superior. Here the case was set in motion by the SHO himself and there was no complaint by the District Magistrate. As the Court put it, “there is complete absence of any such complaint in writing by the public servant.” Relying on Devendra Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), State of U.P. v. Suresh Chandra Srivastava, (1984) 05 SC CK 0023, State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy, (1981) 01 SC CK 0041, Daulat Ram v. State of Punjab, (1962) 01 SC CK 0007, Saloni Arora v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2017) 01 SC CK 0117 and Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah, (2005) 03 SC CK 0048, it held that the bar is mandatory and cognizance without the required complaint is without jurisdiction.
On the State’s argument that Section 126(2) BNS was a distinct offence, the Court held that both allegations arose from one transaction — the procession and gathering at the police station — and “they cannot be spilt up in two distinct transactions.” The Section 215 bar therefore applied to the Section 126(2) charge as well. Separately, a spot map in the case diary showed the seven persons gathered some distance from the police station building, so even on the investigation’s own material Section 126 was not made out. Noting the petitioner’s academic record, the Court observed that “such a bright student should not be unnecessarily dragged in criminal proceedings.”
What the Court Actually Held
- Under Section 215(1)(a) BNSS, no court can take cognizance of an offence under Section 223 BNS without a written complaint by the public servant concerned or an authorised superior; an FIR by the SHO does not satisfy this.
- Where the Section 223 and Section 126(2) BNS allegations arise from the same transaction, the prosecution cannot split them to avoid the Section 215 bar.
- On the spot map in the case diary, the gathering was away from the police station building, so the ingredients of Section 126 BNS were not made out.
- The petition was allowed; the cognizance order of 16.12.2024, FIR No. 198/2024 of P.S. Palsud and the charge-sheet were quashed.
Why This Judgment Matters
- FIRs for breaching Section 144 / Section 163 BNSS orders are commonly registered against protesters; this ruling confirms they cannot proceed without a written complaint from the authority whose order was violated.
- It applies the Supreme Court’s same-transaction principle to stop the prosecution from adding another offence to get around the Section 215 BNSS bar.
- It protects students and young people from long criminal cases arising out of peaceful protest gatherings.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Protesters and Students
- If you are booked only on a police FIR for violating a prohibitory order, check whether the authority that issued the order filed a written complaint; without it the case may not survive.
- The High Court can be approached to quash such proceedings even after the trial court has taken cognizance, as happened here.
For Counsel
- Raise the Section 215 BNSS bar for offences under Sections 206–223 BNS; rely on Devendra Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Daulat Ram v. State of Punjab.
- Where the police add a separate offence, show from the record that it arises from the same transaction.
- Use the investigation’s own material, such as spot maps, to test whether the added offence is made out.
Key Takeaways
- Section 223 BNS needs a written complaint by the public servant.
- An SHO’s FIR cannot replace that complaint.
- Same-transaction offences cannot be split to dodge Section 215 BNSS.
- FIR, charge-sheet and cognizance order quashed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can police file an FIR for violating a Section 144 order?
The police may register an FIR, but under Section 215 BNSS a court cannot take cognizance of an offence under Section 223 BNS without a written complaint by the public servant whose order was disobeyed, or an authorised superior. In this case there was no such complaint.
What is Section 223 BNS?
Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita punishes disobedience of an order duly promulgated by a public servant, and corresponds to Section 188 IPC.
Why was the Section 126(2) BNS charge also quashed?
The Court held it arose from the same transaction as the Section 223 allegation, so the Section 215 bar applied to it too. The spot map also showed the gathering was away from the police station building.
Conclusion
The High Court treated Section 215 BNSS as a real safeguard, not a technicality: the law requires the authority whose order is disobeyed to take responsibility for prosecuting the breach. By refusing to let an added charge carry the case forward, the Court ensured that the statutory bar could not be sidestepped.
Practical takeaway: In any prosecution under Section 223 BNS for breaching a prohibitory order, first check for a written complaint by the public servant concerned; if there is none, seek quashing of the cognizance order and the FIR.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com