Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes FIR Against Political Leaders For Allegedly Violating S.144 CrPC Orders, Says Peaceful Protest Not A Penal Offence U/S 188 IPC

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has quashed FIRs against political leaders booked for allegedly violating a Magistrate'sorder promulgated under Section 144 CrPC in 2020.

It was alleged that a group of political leaders, including sitting and former MLAs and ministers of Punjab, violated the orders under Section 144 CrPC enforced in Chandigarh in 2020 to curb COVID-19. They marched towards the Punjab CM's house to meet him and raise grievances in the wake of the deaths of hundreds of people in Punjab due to the consumption of illicit and spurious liquor.

Justice Anoop Chitkara observed, "The Petitioners had every right to protest democratically, and they did so in peace. Under Article 19 of the Constitution of India, in a democratic setup, every citizen has a legitimate right to raise his grievances reasonably without violating the law. The Petitioners were legally raising their grievances with the intent to meet the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Punjab. Merely bringing the Chief Minister of Punjab's attention to an important issue through a peaceful protest does not amount to an offence under section 188 IPC."

The Court was hearing a batch of four petitions filed by political leaders to quash the FIR lodged under Section 188 IPC and summoning order. The petitioners had challenged the police report filed under section 173 CrPC and the formal letter by the District Magistrate addressed to the Court, referring to the FIR registered under section 188.

It was argued by the petitioners that they did not commit any offence under Section 188 IPC because the administration did not comply with the provision of Section 134 CrPC and did not inform the general public of the area where Section 144 CrPC had been implemented.

Right To Protest And Right To Raise Grievance 

Considering the submissions, the Court noted that "there was a hue and cry in the State of Punjab, and people were demanding justice and action against the guilty persons who were responsible for the death of 100 innocent civilians in the State of Punjab because the unscrupulous persons had sold illicit alcohol to them for their consumption."

To apprise the public sentiments toward the Government, seek some aid to the devastated families, and stop such tragedies in the future, they decided to visit the Chief Minister of Punjab, it added.

It further noted that it remained undisputed that the petitioners were not going to the residence of the Chief Minister for any personal work, but they were going for a social cause and that in the tragedy they were protesting, more than 100 persons had died in Punjab.

Justice Chitkara observed that as public representatives, the petitioners were peacefully proceeding to meet the Chief Minister of Punjab to highlight their grievances. They had "every right to protest democratically", under Article 19 of the Constitution.

It was further added that in a democratic setup, every citizen had a legitimate right to raise his grievances reasonably without violating the law and that the petitioners were legally raising their grievances with the intent to meet the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Punjab.

Merely bringing the Chief Minister of Punjab's attention to an important issue through a peaceful protest does not amount to an offence under section 188 IPC, the judge added.

Ingredients Of Section 188 IPC Were Not Satisfied

The Court said that the counsel for UT "did not place on record any material that promulgation under Section 144 CrPC dated 09.07.2020 was issued to curtail COVID-19." In this order, the only thing that was mentioned was that "it was in force from 18.07.2020 for 60 days, i.e., up to 15.09.2020."

Justice Chitkara elucidated that, "To attract the prima facie violation of Section 188 IPC, the concerned public servant or their successor must point out in the complaint that despite knowing such promulgation, the violator, without any mensrea or intention, disobeyed its directions; And either such disobedience caused or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person lawfully employed, or such disobedience caused or tends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray. It is sufficient that the offender knows of the order they disobey and that such disobedience produced or is likely to produce harm."

The State has not gathered any evidence to prima facie establish the above essential ingredients, and what disobedience the petitioner caused in this regard. Given the above, an offence under Section 188 of the IPC is not made out against any of the accused named in the FIR, the Court said further.

Condition Of Section 195 CrPC Were Not Complied 

The bench also pointed out that another reason to disrupt the criminal trial was the express bar of Section 195 CrPC, which applies to the facts of the present case.

It was found that the CrPC clearly stated that the Court cannot take Cognizance of the Police Report/Challan. The complaint as defined under section 2(d) of CrPC, excludes the Police Report/Challan under section 173 CrPC, and cognizance can be taken only on a complaint filed by the complainant in Court under section 200 of CrPC, the Bench found.

The Court noted that the complaint filed by the IAS officer in this case under Section 195 CrPC, was after the FIR and police report filed under Section 173 CrPC.

"Thus, it remains crystal clear that notices were not issued based on the complaint filed by the District Magistrate but on the complaint filed by the Officer Incharge of Police Station. Although the complaint was handed over by the concerned District Magistrate to Senior Superintendent of Police but the Chief Judicial Magistrate did not take cognizance based on the said complaint but he took cognizance on the basis of police report filed under Section 173 CrPC," said the judge.

Neither the police report/Challan under section 173(2)3 CrPC could have been filed in the Court, nor could the Court have taken cognizance of the offence based on such a police report, added the Court.

Reliance was also placed upon the Apex Court's verdicts in the cases of C. Muniappan and ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu (2010) and Saloni Arora v. State of NCT of Delhi (2017) to underscore the importance of compliance with Section 195 CrPC for the prosecution.

Justice Chitkara thus observed that "given the express provisions provided under Section 195 of the CrPC, criminal prosecution under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) cannot be launched by filing a police report under section 173 CrPC but can only be initiated by the concerned public servant by filing a complaint under section 1904 (a) CrPC and not under 190(b) CrPC and "the concerned Court is empowered to take cognizance only when it is filed by the persons as mentioned in section 195 CrPC and not otherwise."

In light of the above, the Court granted the relief and quashed the FIR along with the related proceedings.

Appearance: Advocates N.K. Verma and Ankush Verma, Advocate

for the petitioners in CRM-M Nos.59436 & 60937-2022 and CRM-M-33988-2023.

Advocate Ravinder Rana for the petitioner(s) in CRM-M-60822-2022.

 Sr. Advocate Vijay Kumar Jindal with Advocate Akshay Jindal, Pankaj Gautam, Advocate

for the petitioner(s) in CRM-M-60510-2022.

Manish Bansal, PP, UT Chandigarh with  Navjit Singh, Advocate for the respondent-U.T.

Shiva Khurmi, AAG, Punjab.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 259

Case Title: Madan Mohan Mittal and another v. U.T. Chandigarh and others with connected matters

Click here to read/download the order