DEVENDRA KUMAR versus THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.

DEVENDRA KUMAR versus THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.

The court held that the acts alleged prima facie amounted to obstruction under Section 186 I.P.C. (obstruction is not limited to physical force), and that the complaint lodged by the Administrative Civil Judge did not suffer legal infirmity; however, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate should have taken cognizance and issued process rather than directing police investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The court clarified that Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C. bars judicial cognizance of offences listed therein unless a written complaint by the public servant or his administrative superior exists, but Section 195 does not prohibit police investigation under the Cr.P.C.; courts must apply twin...

Parties
Petitioner: Devendra Kumar; Respondent: The State (NCT of Delhi); Respondent: Anr.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
20 August 2025
Procedural Posture
Special Leave Petition (criminal) No. 12373 of 2025 / Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
Petition disposed of
Legal Topics
Section 195 Cr.p.c., Section 186 I.p.c., Section 341 I.p.c., Obstruction in Discharge of Public Functions, Private Complaint, FIR Registration, Police Investigation Under Section 156(3) Cr.p.c., Severance of Distinct Offences, Section 340 Cr.p.c. Procedure
Criminal Procedure Criminal Law Penal Law Section 195 Cr.p.c. Section 186 I.p.c. Section 341 I.p.c. Obstruction in Discharge of Public Functions Private Complaint +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 30 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Devendra Kumar

Petitioner

The State (NCT of Delhi)

Respondent

Anr.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Special Leave Petition (criminal) No. 12373 of 2025 / Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate erred in directing police investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. instead of taking cognizance and issuing process on a complaint lodged by a Civil Judge for offences under Sections 186 and 341 I.P.C.
  2. 2 Whether the word 'obstruction' in Section 186 I.P.C. is confined to physical obstruction or requires use of criminal force
  3. 3 Scope and operation of Section 195 Cr.P.C., including whether it bars police investigation and whether distinct offences can be severed to evade Section 195

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the acts alleged prima facie amounted to obstruction under Section 186 I.P.C. (obstruction is not limited to physical force), and that the complaint lodged by the Administrative Civil Judge did not suffer legal infirmity; however, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate should have taken cognizance and issued process rather than directing police investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The court clarified that Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C. bars judicial cognizance of offences listed therein unless a written complaint by the public servant or his administrative superior exists, but Section 195 does not prohibit police investigation under the Cr.P.C.; courts must apply twin...

Court Disposition

Petition disposed of

Orders

  • Petition disposed of.
  • Left open to the petitioner to raise the contention regarding the bar of Section 195 Cr.P.C. before the trial court at the end of the investigation if a chargesheet is filed.