B. N. John Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. [Criminal Appeal No.________ of 2025 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 2184 of 2024]
- ByPravleen Kaur --
- 15 Jun 2025 --
- 0 Comments
The Supreme Court of India in B. N. John vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. [Criminal Appeal No. ________ of 2025 @ SLP (Crl.) No. 2184 of 2024] delivered its judgment on January 2, 2025, quashing the criminal proceedings against the appellant. The bench comprised Justices B. V. Nagarathna and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh.
Facts and Background
The appellant, B. N. John, was charged under Sections 186 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for allegedly obstructing public servants during a raid conducted at a hostel managed by him. The prosecution alleged that the appellant and others created disturbances and assaulted officials, leading to FIR registration and subsequent criminal proceedings. The appellant sought quashing of the chargesheet and related proceedings, contending that the FIR and charges lacked legal and factual basis.
Legal Issues
The Supreme Court considered:
Whether the FIR disclosed a prima facie case under Sections 353 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant) and 186 (obstructing public servant) of the IPC.
Whether cognizance under Section 186 IPC was valid in the absence of a written complaint by a public servant as mandated by Section 195(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
Whether the High Court erred in rejecting the appellant’s plea for quashing the criminal proceedings.
Court’s Analysis
The Court observed that the FIR did not allege any use of criminal force or assault by the appellant, which is essential to invoke Section 353 IPC. Mere obstruction without assault does not constitute an offense under this section. Regarding Section 186 IPC, the Court held that taking cognizance without a valid written complaint by a public servant before the Magistrate was illegal, as per the procedural requirement under Section 195(1)(a) CrPC.
The Court applied the principles established in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, which provide guidelines for quashing FIRs where the complaint is frivolous, lacks prima facie case, or violates procedural safeguards.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the criminal proceedings against B. N. John. It held that:
The FIR lacked essential ingredients to constitute an offense under Section 353 IPC.
Cognizance under Section 186 IPC was invalid due to non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements.
The criminal proceedings were liable to be quashed in the interest of justice.
This judgment reinforces the necessity of strict compliance with procedural safeguards in criminal prosecutions and clarifies the distinction between obstruction and criminal force against public servants. It also affirms judicial discretion to quash baseless FIRs to prevent misuse of the criminal justice system.
RELATED Blog
0 comments