Direct Complaint to Police by Sub-Divisional Magistrate Violated Section 215 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Court Emphasizes Proper Complaint Channels for Contempt-Related Offences
In a significant judgment dated August 11, 2026, the Himachal Pradesh High Court, presided over by Justice Sandeep Sharma, quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against Pallavi Ramchaik under Sections 221 and 267 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The proceedings had stemmed from an alleged disruption of court proceedings during a hearing in the Rampur Bushahr district, Shimla.
The case arose when a Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), also the complainant in this matter, lodged a complaint directly with the police alleging that the petitioner, Pallavi Ramchaik, entered the courtroom without permission and disrupted court proceedings by raising objections and arguments. Based on this complaint, the police registered a Kalandra and initiated criminal proceedings against Ms. Ramchaik.
However, the petitioner challenged the legality of the criminal proceedings on the ground that the complaint did not comply with the mandatory procedural requirements under Section 215 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. This provision mandates that for offences related to contempt of lawful authority and offences against public justice (including Sections 206 to 223 and Section 267 of BNS), no court shall take cognizance except on a complaint in writing either from the public servant concerned, a superior officer to whom he is administratively subordinate, or an authorized public servant.
The High Court meticulously examined the provision and found that the SDM, instead of filing a written complaint to the superior court or an authorized public servant, directly approached the police. This direct complaint bypassed the procedural safeguard established under Section 215 BNSS, rendering the subsequent criminal proceedings legally invalid.
The Court relied on authoritative Supreme Court precedents, including the landmark decision in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal (1992), which sets out parameters for quashing criminal proceedings where allegations do not prima facie constitute an offence or where there is an abuse of process. It also referenced recent Apex Court rulings emphasizing that inherent powers under Section 528 of BNSS (formerly Section 482 CrPC) are to be exercised to prevent abuse of process and protect individuals from unnecessary harassment.
Justice Sharma held that continuing the trial would amount to a gross abuse of the legal process and unnecessary harassment of the petitioner, who was not connected by sufficient evidence to the alleged offence. The Court underscored that the procedural safeguards under BNSS are designed to ensure that complaints about court disruptions and contempt are channeled appropriately to maintain judicial discipline and prevent frivolous prosecutions.
Consequently, the High Court quashed the Kalandra and all consequent proceedings against Pallavi Ramchaik, discharging her from the allegations. The judgment reinforces the importance of strict adherence to procedural norms in prosecution of offences related to court proceedings and public justice under the new BNSS framework.
Bottom Line:
Petition for quashing criminal proceedings under Sections 221 and 267 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Allegations of disruption of court proceedings - Sub-Divisional Magistrate lodged complaint directly to police instead of superior court or authorized public servant - Violation of procedural requirements under Section 215 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Statutory provision(s):
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Sections 221, 267; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 215; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528
Pallavi Ramchaik v. State of H.P., (Himachal Pradesh) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2972588
