Mandatory complaint procedure bars FIR-based prosecution for Section 174-A offences; consequential proceedings were quashed.

Section 195(1)(a)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure creates a bar on cognizance for offences within its scope unless a complaint in writing is made by the competent authority. The document states that an offence under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code falls within that restriction, so criminal process could not lawfully begin through an FIR, police investigation, or a report under Section 173(2) in place of the prescribed complaint procedure. Any cognizance taken on that basis lacked legal foundation, and the FIRs with all consequential proceedings were quashed as unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether FIRs and all consequential criminal proceedings for an offence under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code could be sustained when the alleged prosecution was not initiated by a complaint in writing as required by Section 195(1)(a)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Analysis: Section 195(1)(a)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure imposes a clear bar on cognizance for offences falling within its scope except on a complaint in writing by the competent authority. An offence under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code was treated as falling within that statutory restriction. In the absence of the prescribed complaint procedure, registration of an FIR, investigation, filing of reports under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and any cognizance taken on that basis were held to be without legal foundation and incapable of being continued.

Conclusion: The FIRs and all proceedings arising from them were held unsustainable and were quashed in favour of the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute bars cognizance except upon a complaint in the manner prescribed, criminal process cannot be initiated by FIR and police investigation in substitution of that mandatory procedure.

---