Police Report Is Not a Valid Complaint under Section 195 CrPC; Cognizance for Section 188 IPC Offence Without Public Servant’s Complaint Is Void: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Merely styling a chargesheet as a complaint cannot cure the defect when the law requires a specific mode of initiation” - In a key ruling affirming the procedural safeguards under Section 195(1)(a) CrPC, the Andhra Pradesh High Court quashed criminal proceedings against Kollu Raveendra and 17 others, ruling that prosecution under Section 188 IPC and Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 cannot proceed unless a written complaint is filed by the concerned public servant. The FIR and chargesheet filed by the police, in the absence of such a complaint, were held to be without jurisdiction and thus vitiated the entire proceedings.

Justice Dr. Y. Lakshmana Rao, allowing the petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, reiterated that even in extraordinary situations like the COVID-19 pandemic, the fundamental procedural rights and statutory bars under the CrPC cannot be overlooked.

“Charge Sheet Is Not a Substitute for a Complaint Under Section 195” – Court Criticizes Police Overreach

FIR Registered After Expiry of Relevant G.O.; No Valid Regulation in Force on Date of Alleged Offence

The prosecution alleged that the petitioners had violated a government order under the Epidemic Diseases Act on 13.06.2020, and an FIR was registered under Section 188 IPC and Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act in Crime No.146/2020 of Inaguduru Police Station. The Sub-Inspector of Police investigated the case and submitted a charge sheet styled as a “complaint”, urging the Magistrate to take cognizance.

The Court, however, examined the legal requirements under Section 195 CrPC and noted:

“Though the police officer styled the charge sheet as a complaint, the document bore all the characteristics of a police report under Section 173(2) CrPC. The Magistrate was not competent to take cognizance on such a report for an offence under Section 188 IPC, in the absence of a written complaint by the concerned public servant.” [Para 28]

Further, the Court pointed out that G.O.R.T.No.211, the order purportedly violated by the petitioners, had expired on 23.03.2020, nearly three months before the date of the alleged offence. Thus:

“There is no material placed on record to establish that any valid regulation or order under the Epidemic Diseases Act was in force on the date of the alleged offence.” [Para 3]

“Cognizance Without Compliant by Public Servant is Void Ab Initio”

Reiterates Supreme Court’s Position in Daulat Ram and C. Muniappan

The Court relied on long-settled jurisprudence laid down by the Supreme Court in Daulat Ram v. State of Punjab, 1962 SCC OnLine SC 342 and C. Muniappan v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2010) 9 SCC 567, and held:

“Section 195(1)(a) CrPC bars the court from taking cognizance of any offence under Section 188 IPC unless there is a written complaint by the public servant whose lawful order is disobeyed. This safeguard cannot be circumvented by submitting a police report in the guise of a complaint.” [Para 7]

The Court further cited Kantamaneni Ravishankar v. State of A.P., 2020 SCC OnLine AP 726, and the Madras High Court decision in Jeevanandham v. State of Tamil Nadu, to stress that:

“A police officer cannot register an FIR under Section 188 IPC without a written complaint from the concerned public servant. Preventive action may be taken under Section 41 CrPC, but prosecution requires due compliance with Section 195 CrPC.” [Para 19]

“A G.O. That Has Expired Cannot Be Invoked to Prosecute Citizens”

Quashing of Section 3 Epidemic Diseases Act Also Upheld

The Court pointed out that the offence under Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, which deems violation of orders under the Act as a violation under Section 188 IPC, could not have been invoked because:

“G.O.R.T.No.211 had lapsed on 23.03.2020. As on 13.06.2020, the date of the alleged violation, there was no valid order under the Epidemic Diseases Act in force. Therefore, invocation of Section 3 is legally unsustainable.” [Para 32]

“Sub-Inspector Cannot Self-Style a Charge Sheet as a Complaint to Evade Section 195”

Police Report Must Be Distinguished from a Complaint under Section 2(d) CrPC

The High Court took the opportunity to clarify the legal definitions of “complaint” and “police report” under the Code:

“Section 2(d) defines ‘complaint’ as an allegation made to a Magistrate with a view to taking action under the Code, excluding a police report. A charge sheet under Section 173(2) is a police report and cannot be treated as a complaint under Section 195.” [Paras 25–27]

Further, the Court noted that no prior approval was obtained by the Sub-Inspector from his superior officers or the administrative head to file such a complaint, which made the filing process procedurally defective and without jurisdiction.

“Magistrate’s Cognizance Without Proper Complaint Is Without Jurisdiction”

Proceedings in C.C. No. 828/2020 Quashed

The High Court observed that despite being a public servant under Section 21 IPC, the Sub-Inspector was not authorized to file the complaint in the required format under Section 195 CrPC. The Magistrate’s cognizance was therefore invalid, leading to the quashing of proceedings in C.C. No. 828/2020.

“The learned Judicial Magistrate was not authorised to take cognizance in view of the embargo under Section 195 of the CrPC. The entire prosecution is vitiated by procedural illegality.” [Para 31]

This decision by the Andhra Pradesh High Court is a strong reaffirmation of the mandatory procedural safeguards under Section 195 CrPC, especially in prosecutions under Section 188 IPC and regulations under special statutes like the Epidemic Diseases Act. The ruling cautions against police overreach, prosecution based on expired government orders, and judicial cognizance in violation of statutory bars, thereby upholding individual rights and the sanctity of procedural law.

The case also underscores the need for public servants to follow due process before setting criminal law in motion and reiterates that technical non-compliance with jurisdictional requirements renders proceedings void ab initio.

Date of Decision: October 30, 2025