A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court of India, in B.N. John v. State of U.P. & Anr., examined the legality of criminal proceedings initiated under Sections 353 and 186 of the IPC against the appellant, B.N. John. The appellant, a hostel owner, was accused of obstructing and attacking public officials during a raid on his premises. The prosecution was initiated based on an FIR and subsequent charge sheet. The appellant sought quashing of these proceedings on the ground that the complaint, as required under Section 195(1) of CrPC, was not filed before a Judicial Magistrate. The Supreme Court held that the absence of a valid written complaint by a public servant before a Judicial Magistrate barred cognizance of the offense under Section 186 IPC. Further, it found that the FIR did not disclose specific allegations of assault or use of criminal force necessary to invoke Section 353 IPC. The Court ruled that the prosecution and proceedings were illegal and quashed the case pending before the CJM, Varanasi.

Keywords:

• Section 353 IPC (Assault or use of criminal force against a public servant)
• Section 186 IPC (Obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions)
• Section 195(1) CrPC (Bar on cognizance without a written complaint)
• Judicial Magistrate vs. Executive Magistrate
• Quashing of FIR and proceedings

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgment Cause Title

B.N. John v. State of U.P. & Anr.

ii) Case Number

Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 2025

iii) Judgment Date

02 January 2025

iv) Court

Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum

Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh

vi) Author of Judgment

Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh

vii) Citation

[2025] 1 S.C.R. 12 : 2025 INSC 4

viii) Legal Provisions Involved

• Section 353 IPC – Assault or use of criminal force to deter a public servant from duty
• Section 186 IPC – Obstructing a public servant in discharge of public functions
• Section 195(1) CrPC – Bar on cognizance of offenses under Sections 172-188 IPC without a complaint from a public servant
• Section 155(2) CrPC – Bar on police investigation of a non-cognizable offense without Magistrate’s approval

ix) Case is Related to Which Law Subjects?

• Criminal Law
• Procedural Law (CrPC)
• Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The appellant, B.N. John, ran a hostel for underprivileged children in Varanasi under the NGO Sampoorna Development India. On 03 June 2015, government officials raided the hostel, allegedly due to non-compliance with the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. The officials sought to relocate the children. The appellant claimed the raid was conducted without legal authorization and was instigated by personal enmity with one K.V. Abraham. The authorities accused him of assaulting and obstructing public servants, leading to an FIR under Sections 353 and 186 IPC.

The appellant challenged the prosecution, arguing that no valid complaint was filed before a Judicial Magistrate as required under Section 195(1) CrPC for an offense under Section 186 IPC. He also contended that the FIR lacked allegations necessary to invoke Section 353 IPC. The Allahabad High Court rejected his plea, prompting this appeal before the Supreme Court.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. Appellant’s Background – The appellant owned a hostel for underprivileged children under Sampoorna Development India.
2. Raid by Officials – On 03 June 2015, District Probation Officer, City Magistrate, and others raided the hostel, allegedly due to non-compliance with the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.
3. Allegations Against Appellant – The appellant was accused of creating disturbance and obstructing officials. A complaint was sent to the City Magistrate (not a Judicial Magistrate).
4. FIR and Arrest – An FIR (No. 290 of 2015) was registered under Section 353 IPC, later adding Section 186 IPC. The appellant was arrested but granted bail on 08 June 2015.
5. Charge Sheet and Cognizance – The CJM, Varanasi, took cognizance on 11 August 2015, despite no prior complaint from a public servant to a Judicial Magistrate.
6. High Court Decision – The Allahabad High Court refused to quash the case, citing prima facie allegations in the FIR and witness statements.
7. Supreme Court Challenge – The appellant argued that the prosecution was illegal due to procedural defects.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Was the criminal prosecution under Section 186 IPC valid in the absence of a complaint before a Judicial Magistrate as required by Section 195(1) CrPC?
2. Did the FIR disclose the necessary elements of “assault” or “criminal force” to justify invoking Section 353 IPC?
3. Could the police investigate a non-cognizable offense (Section 186 IPC) without prior permission from a Magistrate under Section 155(2) CrPC?
4. Was the entire criminal proceeding against the appellant an abuse of process of law?

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. No Complaint Before Judicial Magistrate – Section 195(1) CrPC mandates that offenses under Section 186 IPC require a written complaint by a public servant before a Judicial Magistrate. Here, the complaint was sent to an Executive Magistrate (City Magistrate), not a Judicial Magistrate, making the prosecution illegal.
2. FIR Lacked Allegations of Assault/Criminal Force – Section 353 IPC requires assault or use of criminal force. The FIR only mentioned disturbance and obstruction, not assault or force.
3. Investigation Without Magistrate’s Permission – Section 155(2) CrPC bars police from investigating a non-cognizable offense (Section 186 IPC) without a Magistrate’s order. No such order existed.
4. Malicious Prosecution – The case was allegedly motivated by personal enmity with K.V. Abraham.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. High Court Order Was Justified – The Allahabad High Court rightly found prima facie evidence in the FIR and witness statements.
2. Subsequent Witness Statements – Statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC later mentioned an “attack” on officials, supporting Section 353 IPC.
3. Judicial Interference Not Warranted – The Supreme Court should not interfere in pending criminal proceedings unless there is a clear legal bar.

H) JUDGMENT

a) Ratio Decidendi

1. Violation of Section 195(1) CrPC – No valid complaint was filed before a Judicial Magistrate. Cognizance of Section 186 IPC was illegal.
2. FIR Lacked Essential Ingredients of Section 353 IPC – No assault or criminal force was alleged. Cognizance was improper.
3. Police Investigated a Non-Cognizable Offense Illegally – Section 186 IPC is non-cognizable; investigation without Magistrate’s order was unlawful.

b) Obiter Dicta

• Criminal prosecution must strictly comply with procedural safeguards.
• The case illustrates abuse of process when authorities bypass statutory requirements.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The Supreme Court correctly quashed the criminal proceedings, upholding statutory safeguards under CrPC. The Allahabad High Court erred in ignoring procedural violations. The ruling reinforces the necessity of adherence to due process in criminal law.

J) REFERENCES

a) Important Cases Referred

• State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [(1992) Supp. 3 SCR 735]
• CBI v. Tapan Kumar Singh [(2003) 6 SCC 175]
• Gulam Abbas v. State of U.P. [(1982) 1 SCC 71]

b) Important Statutes Referred

• Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
• Juvenile Justice Act, 2015