1) By forcing the police to lodge an FIR under Section 188, the CJM and SMC adopted an illegal route. Landmark Supreme Court judgments (like State of UP v. Mata Bhikh) clearly state that registration of an FIR and subsequent charge sheet under Section 188 IPC is void ab initio (completely invalid from the start) if it bypasses Section 195 CrPC.

2) 

Dear Sir/Madam,

Based on the facts stated, your case raises an important issue concerning the change in the police's position, the legal effect of the earlier High Court stay, and the restrictions imposed by the High Court on filing a chargesheet without its permission.

Initially, the police reportedly concluded that no offence had taken place. Subsequently, after the FIR was registered under Sections 188 and 353 IPC, the High Court stayed the proceedings. After approximately three years, the stay was partially modified, and the High Court directed an investigation while requiring prior permission before filing a chargesheet. The police have now submitted a report taking a contrary position.

The change in the police's assessment does not, by itself, prove that the latest report is false or that the investigation is illegal. However, if the latest report contradicts the earlier report without explaining the material evidence or the reason for the change, that inconsistency can be raised before the High Court. Your immediate priority should be to establish exactly what the latest report is, what the High Court authorised, and whether the police have complied with the court's directions.

Recommended course of action

First, obtain and compare the two police reports and the exact High Court orders. Your next application should be based on the documentary inconsistency and compliance with the court's directions, rather than simply describing the FIR as false.

1. Place the contradictory reports before the High Court. Prepare a comparative statement showing the earlier finding that no offence occurred, the evidence considered at that time, the subsequent change in the police conclusion, and whether the latest report explains that change.

2. Seek production of the relevant record. Through your advocate, request the High Court to call for the earlier police report, the latest investigation report, the material relied upon for the changed conclusion and, if necessary, the case diary for judicial scrutiny. The case diary is not ordinarily open to unrestricted inspection by the accused.

3. Seek enforcement or clarification of the High Court's order. If the latest report is only an investigation/status report, its submission may not itself violate the restriction on filing a chargesheet. If a chargesheet has actually been filed without the permission required by the High Court, your advocate should seek appropriate directions concerning compliance with that order.

4. Challenge the investigation on specific grounds. If the record demonstrates material omissions, unexplained contradictions, suppression of exculpatory evidence or failure to examine relevant witnesses, seek appropriate further-investigation directions or other relief within the pending proceedings. A change of opinion by itself is not conclusive proof of bias.

5. Examine the statutory bar concerning Section 188 IPC. Section 195(1)(a) CrPC generally restricts a court from taking cognizance of an offence under Section 188 IPC except upon a written complaint by the public servant concerned or an authorised superior. Your advocate should examine whether the municipal complaint before the CJM satisfies the statutory requirements, and how the earlier complaint proceedings and subsequent FIR order affect the issue. This point should be assessed separately from the allegation under Section 353 IPC.

6. Consider whether the earlier CJM proceedings have any continuing legal effect. Obtain the dismissal order and determine whether the complaint was dismissed for non-appearance, whether any order on merits was passed, and whether the proceedings are legally connected to the FIR now before the High Court. The dismissal does not automatically terminate the separate High Court proceedings.

Documents needed for a precise opinion

Please have your advocate examine the following together: the original municipal complaint, the CJM order directing registration of the FIR, both police reports, the High Court's original stay order, the later order permitting investigation subject to prior permission for filing a chargesheet, and the latest report submitted by the police.

The precise relief should then be framed around the wording of those orders. If the police have breached an express judicial restriction, that is a distinct issue from whether the evidence establishes the alleged offences, and both issues should be addressed separately.

A police officer cannot register an FIR or file a chargesheet directly for an offense under Section 188 IPC.

The CJM ordering an FIR directly for an offense under Section 188 IPC is legally flawed and violates the mandatory provisions of Section 195(1)(a) CrPC.

The police initially reported to the CJM that no offense took place, and now submit a contradictory report saying an offense occurred. You can use their initial official report as key documentary evidence to establish malice, ulterior motive, and a biased investigation.

If no force was used, charging Section 353 alongside Section 188 IPC without factual basis amounts to an abuse of the court process.

The fact that the underlying complaint before the CJM was dismissed for non-prosecution/absence of the complainant weakens the foundation of the case.

When the police approach the High Court seeking permission to file a chargesheet, file a detailed counter-affidavit/objection.

Argue for complete quashing of the FIR and the biased investigation report based on well-settled Supreme Court precedents.

1) The police have a statutory right and duty to investigate cognizable offenses. A Magistrate ordering an FIR under Section 156(3) is directing an investigation before taking judicial cognizance.

2) : The bar explicitly says, "No Court shall take cognizance...". It does not say "No police officer shall register an FIR" or "No investigation can take place". Therefore, the FIR itself is not a violation.

Does the CJM's process still violate Section 195(1) CrPC?

Yes. Section 195(1)(a) CrPC is mandatory: for an offence under Section 188 IPC, the court cannot take cognizance except upon a written complaint of the public servant whose lawful order was allegedly disobeyed. A police report is expressly excluded from the definition of “complaint”. The CJM ordering an FIR merely on the basis of a police report—especially one that itself found no offence—does not satisfy this requirement. The defect goes to jurisdiction and renders the prosecution void ab initio.

What should be your course of action now?

Immediately move the High Court, where proceedings are already pending. File an application placing the two contradictory police reports side by side in a comparative chart, highlighting that the second report reverses the earlier finding without disclosing any new material evidence. Argue that this unexplained volte-face demonstrates malice and a biased investigation. Simultaneously press the absolute bar under Section 195(1) CrPC against the Section 188 charge, and point out that the original CJM complaint was dismissed for the complainant’s absence—destroying the foundation of the case. Seek complete quashing of the FIR and the investigation, and oppose any permission for filing a chargesheet. If the Section 353 charge lacks any factual basis of force or obstruction, that too is an abuse of process.

    The entire process still directly violates Section 195(1)(a) CrPC (now Section 215 BNSS). The order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) directing the police to register an FIR under Section 188 IPC and the subsequent registration of that FIR is illegal and without jurisdiction.  Registration of an FIR for Section 188 IPC is Impermissible. Section 188 IPC falls explicitly under Section 195(1)(a)(i) CrPC.The CJM cannot bypass Section 195 CrPC by ordering an FIR under Section 156(3) CrPC. Ordering an FIR to be lodged and forcing the police to investigate converts what should strictly be a statutory private complaint procedure into a state-led police investigation, which is legally forbidden.

You have a very strong case to get the entire FIR and investigation quashed under Section 482 CrPC. Argue that the CJM’s initial direction to file an FIR was coram non judice (without jurisdiction). Any FIR or subsequent charge sheet arising out of an illegal Magistrate order is null and void from the beginning. 

Emphasize to the High Court that the original Section 202 CrPC police report containing daily diary entries and witness statements concluding "no offence" is part of the CJM court record. The CJM’s refusal to follow the statutory procedure under Section 203 CrPC and instead ordering an illegal FIR makes the entire subsequent police investigation malafide and biased.

Yes, Section 195(1)(a) CrPC remains a substantial legal objection concerning the offence under Section 188 IPC, but the fact that the CJM directed registration of an FIR does not, by itself, establish that the statutory bar has been violated.

The crucial distinction is between registration/investigation of an offence and the court taking cognizance of it. Section 195(1)(a)(i) restricts the court from taking cognizance of an offence under Section 188 IPC unless the prescribed written complaint is made by the public servant concerned or a public servant to whom that officer is administratively subordinate