The Court held that under Section 215 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the complaint was required to be made in writing to the superior court or to the public servant to whom the complainant was administratively subordinate.

Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked that: “Since the complainant herein was presiding over the Court at the time when the alleged disruption was caused by the petitioner, he could have made a complaint in writing to the Court to which his Court is subordinate.…the complainant…ought to have made a complaint in writing either directly to the superior court or to some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate.”

Background:

The case arose from an incident on February 24, 2025, during the hearing of a case before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Rampur Bushahr. The SDM alleged that Pallavi Ramchaik entered the courtroom without permission, raised objections and advanced arguments, and continued disrupting the proceedings despite being directed to leave.

Alleging obstruction of his official duties and interference with the administration of justice, the SDM lodged a complaint with the police, following which a Kalandra was filed under Sections 221 and 276 of the BNS.

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking quashing of the Kalandra and consequential proceedings, contending that the statutory procedure under Section 215 BNSS had not been followed.

The High Court observed that Section 215 BNSS bars a court from taking cognizance of offences under Sections 206 to 223 BNS except upon a written complaint by the concerned public servant, his administrative superior, or an authorised public servant.

In this case, since the SDM was himself presiding over the proceedings when the alleged disruption occurred, he was required to approach the superior court or the public servant to whom he was administratively subordinate, rather than lodging a complaint with the police. The subsequent police investigation and filing of the Kalandra therefore did not follow the procedure mandated by Section 215 BNSS.

The Court further relied on the settled principle that statutory safeguards governing prosecution cannot be circumvented merely by changing the description or label of an offence.

Finding sufficient grounds to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS, the Court held that continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law and cause unnecessary harassment to the petitioner. It consequently quashed the Kalandra and all consequential proceedings against her and discharged the petitioner.

Case Name: Pallavi Ramchaik v/s State of H.P. & Ors.

Case No.: Cr.MMO No.497 of 2026

Date of Decision: 11.08.2026