The Supreme Court clarifies contempt of public authority cases, ruling offences under Sections 172–188 IPC can’t be split to bypass Section 195 CrPC; key guidelines issued.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court, in a crucial judgment (Devendra Kumar v. The State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr., 2025 INSC 1009), has clarified the scope of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and its applicability to offences under Sections 172–188 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deal with contempt of lawful authority of public servants.
A Bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan held that no court can take cognizance of offences under these provisions unless a written complaint is made by the concerned public servant or their administrative superior.
Highlights of the Supreme Court Ruling
- Courts cannot take cognizance of offences under Sections 172–188 IPC without a written complaint from the concerned public servant or their superior.
- If an offence falls under Section 195(1)(a)(i) CrPC, courts cannot bypass it by framing other offences from the same facts.
- Splitting charges is permissible only in exceptional cases where facts justify distinct offences, not to circumvent Section 195 safeguards.
- Courts must check:
- Whether additional charges are only to bypass Section 195, and
- Whether the facts genuinely disclose other independent offences.
- If non-Section 195 offences form part of the same transaction, they may also come under Section 195 depending on the facts.
- Section 195 bars courts from taking cognizance, but does not prevent police from investigating. However, courts can only proceed by following Section 340 CrPC.
Case Background
The case arose from a 2013 incident where Ravi Dutt Sharma, a process server, alleged that he was abused, restrained, and mistreated at Nand Nagri Police Station by then-SHO Devendra Kumar while attempting to serve summons and warrants.
Sharma reported the matter to the District & Sessions Judge, Shahdara, who directed the Administrative Civil Judge to file a complaint under Section 195 CrPC. Based on this, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) ordered registration of an FIR under Sections 186 (obstructing a public servant), 341 (wrongful restraint), and 342 (wrongful confinement) IPC.
The SHO challenged the proceedings up to the Delhi High Court, which dismissed his plea. Aggrieved, he approached the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Observations
- The Administrative Civil Judge was correct in filing a complaint under Section 195 CrPC.
- However, the CMM erred by directing a police investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC. Instead, the Magistrate should have directly taken cognizance under Section 204 CrPC.
- This procedural lapse delayed the matter for 12 years, undermining judicial dignity.
On the substantive issue, the Court clarified,
- “Obstruction” under Section 186 IPC is not limited to physical force.
- Threats, verbal abuse, or actions that make it difficult or impossible for a public servant to discharge duties also constitute obstruction
Court’s Direction
The Supreme Court disposed of the petition, allowing the petitioner to raise the Section 195 bar before the trial court if a chargesheet is filed.
It further directed that the judgment be circulated to all High Courts to avoid similar procedural errors.
Appearance:
For the petitioner: Advocates Nikilesh Ramachandran, SC Sagar, Shubham Seth, Ananya V Mehra, and Soumya Saisa Das
Case Title:
Devendra Kumar versus The State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr
SLP (Crl) No. 12373 OF 2025
READ JUDGMENT HERE
