Section 144 CrPC | Police Cannot Be Their Own Complainant: MP HC Quashes Protest Case Against Student

The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore has quashed a criminal case against a young man accused of joining a protest in breach of a prohibitory order, holding that the police could not prosecute him without a written complaint from the concerned public servant, as required under Section 215 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) (Section 195 of CrPC).

Justice Pavan Kumar Dwivedi set aside the FIR, the charge-sheet and the trial court’s order taking cognizance against Rajesh Achaliya, observing that the Station House Officer (SHO) “himself acted as complainant” without any complaint by the District Magistrate.

The case began on June 30, 2024, when an FIR was registered against some members of the tribal community. Aggrieved, members of Jay Adivasi Yuva Shakti (JAYS) applied on July 6, 2024, to the SHO of Police Station Palsud in Barwani for its cancellation.

The police then registered a fresh case, Crime No. 198/2024, alleging that seven JAYS members, including Achaliya, gathered at the police station with banners and raised slogans. They allegedly had no permission from the SDO, Rajpur. This, the FIR said, violated Clause 2.2 of a District Magistrate’s order dated June 7, 2024, passed under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, attracting Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) (Section 188 of IPC).

After investigation, Section 126(2) of BNS (Section 341 of IPC), which deals with wrongful restraint, was added in the final report. The trial court took cognizance against all seven on December 16, 2024.

Before the High Court, Achaliya argued that Section 215 of BNSS (Section 195 of CrPC) bars courts from taking cognizance of offences under Sections 206 to 223 of BNS (Section 172 to 188 of IPC)  without a public servant’s written complaint. He said the Section 126(2) (Section 341 of IPC) charge arose from the same transaction and could not be separated, its ingredients were absent, and he was implicated only for being a JAYS member who protested. He relied on C. Munyapan v. State of Tamil Nadu and Devendra Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi).

The State countered that the objection was never raised before the trial court and that the court had recorded its satisfaction on October 13, 2025, that there was enough material to frame charges. It added that a final report is not an “encyclopaedia” and the prosecution would prove its case through evidence.

The High Court was not persuaded. It also noted that “there is complete absence of any such complaint in writing by the public servant.”

On the second charge, the Court held that the entire act of the seven persons was “in line of one and the same transaction.” Relying on Devendra Kumar, where the Supreme Court held that closely connected offences cannot be split up to defeat the bar, it ruled that both offences stood or fell together.

“It is crystal clear that for taking cognizance of an offence under Section 223 of BNS (Section 188 IPC) requirement of Section 215 of BNSS (Section 195 of CrPC) has to be fulfilled,” the Court said, adding that the trial court “could not have taken cognizance” of either offence.

The Court also found a “very significant” flaw. The investigating agency’s own spot map, prepared in the Crime Detail Form on July 8, 2024, showed the seven persons gathered at a place at some distance from the police station building. “Even by looking at the spot map prepared by the I.O., no offence under Section 126 of BNS (Section 339 of IPC) is made out,” the Court held.

Allowing the petition, Justice Dwivedi noted that the petitioner scored distinctions in four of five Class 12 subjects. “Such a bright student should not be unnecessarily dragged in criminal proceedings spoiling his entire career,” the Court observed, since he had merely accompanied others agitating against an FIR against tribal community members.

The Court held the cognizance order “is not sustainable in the eyes of law” and quashed it, along with the FIR in Crime No. 198/2024 and the resultant charge-sheet.

Advocate Parv Birla appeared for the petitioner, while Government Advocate Bhaskar Agrawal represented the State.

Case Title: Rajesh Achaliya vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Judgment Date: November 2, 2026

Bench: Justice Pavan Kumar Dwivedi