The Madhya Pradesh High Court has quashed an FIR, chargesheet, and cognizance order against a Class 12 student who was booked for allegedly violating prohibitory orders and obstructing public servants while participating in a protest against the registration of an FIR against members of the Tribal community. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 448]

Observing that a bright student should not be unnecessarily dragged into criminal proceedings, potentially spoiling his entire career for such a trivial reason, the bench of Justice Pavan Kumar Dwivedi noted: 

"Petitioner is a bright student who has scored distinction in four subjects out of five subjects in Class-12th. Such a bright student should not be unnecessarily dragged in criminal proceedings spoiling his entire career only for a trivial reason that he accompanied six persons who were agitating against the registration of FIR against some of the members of the tribal community. In view of the above conclusions and settled position of law, in the considered view of this Court, the order taking cognizance is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Consequently, the present petition is allowed. The order dated 16.12.2024 taking cognizance passed in RCT No. 817/2024 and the FIR registered at Crime No. 198/2024 at P.S. Palsud, Dist. Barwani and resultant charge-sheet are hereby quashed". 

Per the prosecution, an FIR had initially been registered on June 30, 2024 against certain members of the tribal community. Aggrieved by the registration, some members of the Jay Adivasi Yuva Shakti submitted an application before the Station House on July 6, 2024, seeking cancellation of the FIR. 

Subsequently, another FIR was registered against seven JAYS members, including the petitioner. The prosecution alleged that they had assembled at the police station carrying banners and raising slogans without obtaining prior permission from the Sub Divisional Officer, Rajpur. 

It was further alleged that their gathering violated an order dated June 7, 2024, passed by the District Magistrate, Barwani, under Section 144 CrPC, which empowers an Executive/District or Sub-Divisional Magistrate to issue urgent orders to stop public nuisance. Accordingly, an offence under Section 223 BNS, which deals with disobedience to an order duly promulgated by a public servant, was registered against them. 

After completion of the investigation, the police also added Section 126(2) BNS, alleging that the gathering obstructed police personnel from discharging their official duties. 

The counsel for the petitioner argued that the cognizance of the offence under Section 223 BNS could not have been taken without complying with Section 215 BNS, which mandates a written complaint by a concerned public servant or an authorised public servant. 

It was argued that the allegations under Section 223 and Section 126(2) of BNS were intrinsically connected and arose from the same transactions. Therefore, the prosecution could not separate the offences to avoid the statutory requirement under Section 215 BNSS. The petitioner also contended that the ingredients of Section 126(2) BNS were not made out even if the allegations in the chargesheet were accepted at face value. 

The State argued that the petitioner had not raised this objection before the Trial Court at the time of consideration of cognizance. It was further argued that the trial court had recorded its satisfaction regarding the availability of sufficient material to frame charges and that the petitioner should face trial. 

The court noted that the offence under Section 223 BNS was registered by the Station House Officer himself, without any written complaint from the District Magistrate, whose prohibitory order was allegedly violated. 

The court referred to Section 215 BNSS, which bars a court from taking cognizance of offences punishable under Section 206 to 223 BNS, except on a written complaint by the public servant concerned, a public servant to whom the former is administratively subordinate, or another duly authorised public servant. 

The court observed that there is a complete absence of such a written complaint in the present case. The court also examined whether the offence under Section 126(2) BNS could independently survive despite non-compliance with Section 215 BNSS. 

Referring to the Supreme Court case of Devendra Kumar v State, the court reiterated that distinct offences arising from the same set of facts may not always be separate, particularly where doing so would defeat the statutory protection under Section 195 CrPC, corresponding to Section 215 BNSS.

Applying this principle, the bench held that the allegations under Section 223 and 126(2) BNS were integral parts of the same transactions and could not be split into two distinct transactions. Consequently, the requirement under Section 215 BNSS applied to the entire incident. 

The bench also noted that the prosecution's own spot map undermined the allegation of obstruction under Section 126(2) BNS. It noted that seven persons had assembled at a location some distance away from the police station building. Thus, even the spot map prepared by the investigating officer did not establish the alleged obstruction of police personnel. 

Emphasizing the petitioner's academic achievements, the court observed that he had secured distinctions in four out of five subjects in the Class 12 examination and had also obtained distinctions in two subjects in class 10. Besides completing a Diploma in Elementary Education, he had cleared the Primary School Teacher Selection Test. 

Holding that the cognizance order was unsustainable in law, the court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR.

For Petitioner: Advocate Parv Birla

For State: Government Advocate Bhaskar Agrawal