Summary and Analysis of Devendra Kumar vs The State NCT of Delhi & Anr
1. Heading of the Judgment
Case Name: Devendra Kumar v. The State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
Citation: 2025 INSC 1009
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judges: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
Date of Judgment: August 20, 2025
2. Related Laws and Legal Provisions
The judgment interprets and applies the following legal provisions:
Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Punishment for voluntarily obstructing a public servant in the discharge of public functions.
Section 341 of the IPC – Punishment for wrongful restraint.
Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Bars courts from taking cognizance of certain offences (including those under Sections 172–188 IPC) unless a complaint is made by the concerned public servant or their administrative superior.
Section 156(3) of the CrPC – Empowers a Magistrate to order a police investigation.
Section 340 of the CrPC – Procedure for filing a complaint by a court for offences affecting the administration of justice.
3. Basic Details of the Judgment
Petitioner: Devendra Kumar (SHO of Nand Nagri Police Station, Delhi)
Respondents: State (NCT of Delhi) and Ravi Dutt Sharma (Process Server)
Background:
A Process Server, Ravi Dutt Sharma, alleged that the petitioner and other police officials obstructed and mistreated him while he was serving court summons and warrants at the police station on October 3, 2013.
The Administrative Civil Judge filed a complaint under Section 195 CrPC before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM).
The CMM directed registration of an FIR under Sections 186 and 341 IPC via order dated November 28, 2013.
The petitioner challenged this order up to the High Court, which upheld the CMM’s direction.
The Supreme Court was approached under Article 136 via a Special Leave Petition.
4. Explanation of the Judgment
a. Factual Background
The Process Server, Ravi Dutt Sharma, was obstructed and humiliated by police officials, including the petitioner (SHO Devendra Kumar), when he tried to serve court processes. He was forced to stand with raised hands and sit on the floor for hours. The incident was reported to the District Judge, and a formal complaint was filed under Section 195 CrPC by the Administrative Civil Judge. The CMM ordered an FIR under Sections 186 and 341 IPC and directed investigation by an ACP-level officer. The petitioner’s revisions and writ petitions were dismissed by lower courts.
b. Key Legal Issues
Whether the act of obstruction under Section 186 IPC requires physical force or criminal force.
Whether the CMM erred in directing police investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC instead of taking direct cognizance.
Whether Section 195 CrPC bars the court from taking cognizance without a written complaint from the concerned public servant.
Whether distinct offences (like Section 341 IPC) can be prosecuted separately if they arise from the same transaction as an offence under Section 186 IPC.
c. Supreme Court’s Reasoning
Obstruction Under Section 186 IPC:
The Court held that obstruction under Section 186 IPC is not limited to physical force. It includes any act that impedes a public servant from performing duties—threats, verbal abuse, or passive resistance can also constitute obstruction.
The allegations against the petitioner (making the process server stand with raised hands, detaining him unlawfully) prima facie amounted to obstruction under Section 186 IPC.Error in Procedure by CMM:
The CMM should have taken direct cognizance of the complaint under Section 195 CrPC and issued process under Section 204 CrPC instead of ordering a police investigation under Section 156(3).
The case involved the dignity of the court and a complaint by a judicial officer; police involvement was unnecessary and procedurally flawed.Mandatory Nature of Section 195 CrPC:
Section 195 CrPC is mandatory. No court can take cognizance of offences under Sections 172–188 IPC without a written complaint from the concerned public servant or their superior.
However, this bar applies only at the stage of cognizance, not during investigation. Police can investigate, but the court cannot take cognizance without the requisite complaint.Splitting of Offences:
If offences under Section 186 IPC and other distinct offences (e.g., Section 341 IPC) are part of the same transaction, they cannot be split to evade the bar under Section 195 CrPC.
Courts must examine whether the essence of the offence falls under Section 195. If so, a complaint from the public servant is mandatory.Investigation vs. Cognizance:
The bar under Section 195 CrPC does not apply to police investigation. Police can investigate cognizable offences, but the court cannot take cognizance without a compliant under Section 195.
After investigation, the court may file a complaint under Section 340 CrPC if expedient in the interest of justice.
d. Final Conclusion
The Supreme Court declined to quash the FIR at this stage but clarified the legal position:
The petitioner may raise the issue of Section 195 CrPC bar before the trial court if a chargesheet is filed.
The CMM erred in directing police investigation instead of taking direct cognizance.
The procedural lapse does not vitiate the entire proceeding at this preliminary stage.
The Court issued guidelines for lower courts to follow in similar cases, emphasizing strict compliance with Section 195 CrPC.
e. Guidelines Issued
Courts must ensure that complaints under Section 195 CrPC are filed only by the concerned public servant or their superior.
The doctrine of severability applies: distinct offences not under Section 195 can be tried separately only if they are not part of the same transaction.
Police investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC is permissible, but cognizance cannot be taken without a Section 195 complaint for offences listed therein.
Courts should avoid mechanical invocation of Section 156(3) in cases involving judicial dignity or public servants.
5. Significance of the Judgment
Clarifies that obstruction under Section 186 IPC includes non-physical acts like threats, verbal abuse, or passive resistance.
Reinforces the mandatory nature of Section 195 CrPC—courts cannot take cognizance without a complaint from the concerned public servant.
Highlights the difference between investigation and cognizance—police can investigate, but courts are barred from taking cognizance without a Section 195 complaint.
Guides lower courts on procedural correctness in cases involving offences against public servants and the administration of justice.