Section 215 BNSS Bar On Cognizance Under Section 223 BNS Cannot Be Bypassed By Adding Section 126(2) BNS: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes FIR Against Student Protester

"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," Madhya Pradesh High Court.

INDORE: In a significant ruling shielding peaceful agitators and students from overzealous police action, the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that courts are barred under Section 215 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 from taking cognizance of disobedience to public orders under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 without a written complaint from the promulgating authority. A single bench of Justice Pavan Kumar Dwivedi, while pronouncing the order on November 2, 2026, held that police cannot circumvent this mandatory embargo by clubbing or splitting interconnected offences arising from the same transaction, such as wrongful restraint under Section 126(2) of the BNS.

The petitioner, an academically distinguished student who had qualified the primary school teacher selection test, accompanied six members of the Jay Adivasi Yuva Shakti to Palsud Police Station to submit a representation protesting an FIR lodged against tribal community members. Alleging that the demonstration violated a prohibitory order issued by the District Magistrate under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Station House Officer suo motu registered an FIR under Section 223 BNS and subsequently filed a charge-sheet adding Section 126(2) BNS. Aggrieved by the resultant cognizance order passed by the trial court, the petitioner invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court.

Whether the trial court was legally competent to take cognizance of an offence under Section 223 BNS in the absence of a written complaint by the concerned District Magistrate as mandated by Section 215 BNSS? Whether the police could sever and prosecute an intrinsically connected offence under Section 126(2) BNS arising from the same transaction to bypass the statutory bar against cognizance?

Examining the statutory scheme, the High Court observed that Section 215 BNSS strictly proscribes courts from taking cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 206 to 223 of the BNS except upon a written complaint made by the concerned public servant or their administrative superior. The court noted that the Station House Officer had impermissibly donned the role of complainant to register the FIR for disobedience of an order promulgated by the District Magistrate.

Absence of written complaint from the concerned public authority invalidates cognizance ab initio

The bench underscored that the trial court could not have assumed jurisdiction over the purported violation of the prohibitory order when the District Magistrate had never lodged a formal complaint. Justice Dwivedi highlighted that Section 215 BNSS serves as a vital safeguard enacted to prevent irresponsible prosecutions against citizens engaged in lawful interactions with public authorities.

The court extensively cited the Supreme Court judgment in Devendra Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) to reiterate that when distinct offences form an integral part of the same transaction, the statutory bar against taking cognizance without a public servant's complaint applies equally to the connected offences. The bench ruled that the allegations under Section 223 BNS and Section 126(2) BNS could not be artificially segregated.

Police cannot circumvent statutory bars against reckless prosecution through verbal jugglery or splitting integral transactions

Rejecting the State's contention that the trial court could independently proceed with the wrongful restraint charge, the High Court held that both allegations stemmed from a singular demonstration. The bench affirmed that courts must see through attempts by police to render the protections of Section 215 BNSS nugatory by invoking other offences merely to bypass the mandatory legal procedure.

Turning to the factual foundation of the charge under Section 126(2) BNS, the court scrutinized the spot map appended to the final report by the investigating agency. The court noted that the agitators were merely gathered at a visible distance outside the police station building and were not obstructing ingress or egress, thereby negating the essential ingredients of wrongful restraint.

Academic careers of bright students cannot be ruined over participation in democratic tribal agitations

Emphasizing the need to protect young students from excessive penal action, the High Court remarked that dragging a promising candidate who had cleared teacher eligibility exams into criminal litigation for peacefully protesting an FIR against tribal members constituted an abuse of judicial process. The court firmly ruled that democratic dissent and peaceful assemblies cannot be criminalized through overreaching police procedures.

The High Court allowed the petition, holding that the trial court's order taking cognizance was wholly unsustainable in law due to non-compliance with Section 215 BNSS. Consequently, the High Court quashed the FIR registered at Palsud Police Station, the resultant charge-sheet, and the cognizance order passed by the trial court.

Date of Decision: November 2, 2026