HC curbs SDM’s direct recourse to police over disruption of court proceedings
Photo used for indicative purpose only. Source internet
Shimla, Sep 5
Himachal Pradesh High Court has laid down an important procedural safeguard governing criminal action arising out of alleged obstruction or disruption of proceedings before subordinate courts, holding that an SDM presiding over a court couldn’t not directly approach the police for registration of a case when the alleged offences fall within the ambit of Section 215 of the BNSS.
The ruling came on a petition filed by Pallavi Ramchaik, who had approached the High Court seeking quashing of a Kalandra registered under Sections 221 and 267 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) at Rampur Bushahr police station. The Kalandra was subsequently presented before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur Bushahr.
The case arose from an incident on February 24, 2025, during the hearing of a case before the then SDM, Rampur Bushahr. According to the complaint, Ramchaik entered the courtroom without permission, raised objections and advanced arguments during the hearing. The SDM alleged that despite being directed to leave, she continued with the conduct, obstructing the discharge of his official duties and hampering court proceedings.
The SDM thereafter lodged a complaint with the SHO, Rampur Bushahr, following which police prepared the Kalandra and, after obtaining permission from the Magistrate concerned, presented it before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate.
The High Court, however, found that the statutory procedure had not been followed.
Justice Sandeep Sharma noted that Section 215 BNSS places a specific restriction on taking cognizance of offences against public servants and offences relating to proceedings in a court.
In respect of offences covered by the provision, prosecution can proceed only on a written complaint by the concerned public servant, an administratively superior public servant, an authorised public servant, or, where applicable, the concerned court or a court to which it is subordinate.
The Court specifically framed the question whether the SDM could have “straightaway lodged a complaint to the police” for registration of a case against the petitioner.
It answered the issue against the manner in which the SDM proceeded.
The Court observed that since the SDM himself was presiding over the court when the alleged disruption occurred, he could have made a written complaint to the court to which his court was subordinate.
Read Also
SDM cannot halt Panchayat polls over ‘money power’ fears, rules Himachal HC
Instead, he approached the SHO, resulting in a police investigation and presentation of the Kalandra before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. The High Court held that, under the law, the complaint ought to have been made in writing either directly to the superior court or to the public servant to whom the SDM was administratively subordinate.
The ruling therefore does not mean that an SDM or presiding judicial/revenue authority is powerless to deal with disruption of proceedings. Rather, the Court has emphasised that such power has to be exercised strictly through the procedure prescribed by law and cannot be converted into an unrestricted authority to initiate criminal proceedings through the police.
The High Court also relied upon its earlier decision in Shubham Kashyap v. State of Himachal Pradesh and the legal principles governing Section 195 of the erstwhile CrPC, underlining that statutory safeguards governing prosecution cannot be circumvented merely by giving the alleged offence another description or label.
Holding that continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law and cause unnecessary harassment to the petitioner, the Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS and quashed the Kalandra and consequential proceedings. The petitioner was discharged.
The judgment was delivered on August 11, 2026, in Pallavi Ramchaik v. State of H.P. & Ors., Cr.MMO No. 497 of 2026.
About the Author
