Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of B. N. John v. State of U.P. & Anr  has held that a complaint filed before an Executive Magistrate cannot be regarded as a complaint filed in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (CrPC). 

What was the Background of B. N. John v. State of U.P. & Anr Case? 

• B.N. John (appellant) was the owner and manager of a hostel operated by an NGO called Sampoorna Development India, which provided accommodation and education facilities for underprivileged children. 
•  According to the appellant, one K.V. Abraham, due to personal disputes, had filed six false cases against him. Four of these cases resulted in his acquittal, while discharge applications were pending in two cases. 
• On 3^rd June 2015, officials conducted a raid at appellant’s hostel, allegedly at Abraham's instigation, claiming the hostel was not following provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. 
• The officials attempted to transfer the children from the hostel to other locations, claiming the hostel was operating without proper authorization from competent authorities. 
• A First Information Report (FIR) was filed against the appellant and his wife under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 
• The appellant was arrested on 8^th  June 2015 but was granted bail the same day. 
• After investigation, a chargesheet was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Varanasi, charging the appellant under Sections 353 and Section 186 of the IPC. 
• The CJM took cognizance and issued summons to the appellant. 
• The appellant filed an application to recall the summons order, which remained pending before the CJM. 
• Subsequently, the appellant approached the Allahabad High Court seeking to quash the chargesheet, cognizance order, and all proceedings in the case. 
• The Allahabad High Court rejected appellant’s plea leading to his appeal before the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court observed that:  
  • On Section 186 IPC of charge: 
    • Observed that cognizance of offenses under Section 186 IPC requires a written complaint by the concerned public servant to a Judicial Magistrate. 
    • It was found that no such complaint was filed before a Judicial Magistrate. 
    • Noted that the complaint to the City Magistrate (Executive Magistrate) did not satisfy the legal requirement. 
  •  On Section 353 IPC of charge: 
    • Observed that the FIR didn't contain any allegation of assault or criminal force, which are essential elements of Section 353 IPC. 
    • Found that the FIR only mentioned "creating disturbance" which is different from assault or criminal force. 
    • Noted that later allegations of assault in witness statements appeared to be an afterthought. 
  •  On Investigation: 
    • Found that police wrongly treated the case as cognizable when the FIR didn't disclose any cognizable offense. 
    • Observed that the entire investigation was vitiated due to this initial legal infirmity. 
  •  On High Court's Decision: 
    • Found that the Allahabad High Court didn't examine crucial legal issues raised in the appeal. 
    • Observed that dismissal of previous Special Leave Petition by co-accused didn't bar examination of legal issues in the present case. 
  •  Final Observations: 
    • Concluded that the cognizance taken by CJM of both offenses was not in accordance with due process. 
    • Found that the entire criminal proceedings were legally unsustainable. 
    • Determined that this was a fit case for exercising powers to quash the proceedings. 
• These observations led the Supreme Court to ultimately allow the appeal and quash all proceedings against the appellant. 

What is Complaint? 

• Complaint was earlier defined under Section 2 (d) of CrPC. 
• The same is now covered under Section 2(1) (h) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) as: 
  • Complaint means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Sanhita, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report. 
  • Explanation. —A report made by a police officer in a case which discloses, after investigation, the commission of a non-cognizable offence shall be deemed to be a complaint; and the police officer by whom such report is made shall be deemed to be the complainant; 

What is Section 215 (1) (a) of BNSS? 

• This section was earlier covered under Section 195 of CrPC. 
• This section states the provision related to Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence. 
• As per subsection 1(a), No court shall take the cognizance of: 
  • Offenses under sections 206-223 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) (excluding section 209). 
  • Including direct offenses, abetment of such offenses and criminal conspiracy to commit such offenses. 
  •  Cognizance can only be taken on written complaint by: 
    • Concerned public servant. 
    • Administratively subordinate public servant. 
    • Public servant authorized by the concerned public servant. 
• Difference Between Judicial Magistrate and Executive Magistrate 

 What are the Landmark cases Cited in B. N. John v. State of U.P. & Anr. Case? 

• State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal (1992): 
  • Established key principles for when FIRs/complaints/criminal cases can be quashed. 
  • Laid down seven categories where courts can exercise power under Section 482 CrPC. 
  • Key principles included: 
    • When allegations in FIR don't constitute any offense. 
    • When FIR doesn't disclose cognizable offense. 
    • When uncontroverted allegations don't disclose commission of offense. 
    • When FIR constitutes only non-cognizable offense. 
    • When allegations are absurd and inherently improbable. 
    • When there's a legal bar to proceedings. 
    • When proceedings are maliciously instituted. 
•  Gulam Abbas v. State of U.P. (1981): 
  • Clarified the distinction between Judicial Magistrates and Executive Magistrates. 
  • Explained separation of judicial functions from executive functions. 
  • It was established that Executive Magistrates cannot exercise judicial powers like taking cognizance of offenses.