Penal Code, 1860 – s.186 – Whether the Chargesheet discloses the ingredients of offence under s.186:
Held: A raid was conducted by the labour officers on the tip of social workers(appellants) to verify the allegation that bonded/child labour were employed at the brick kiln, the appellant accompanied the labour officers for the raid – During inspection, a difference of opinion cropped up between the labour officers and the appellants as to the manner in which the inspection was to be conducted – While the appellants wanted the workmen and children to be brought to the Police Station for interrogation, the members of the labour officers intended to record their statements at the site – The labour officials lodged an FIR against the appellant for obstruction of public function – Essential ingredients of offence under Section 186 are
(i) Obstruction of a public servant in discharge of public functions;
(ii) Such obstruction is done voluntarily and with the intention to prevent discharge of official duties – The issue cropped up due to difference of opinion between the appellant and labour officials, Members of the social organization were of the impression that bonded labourers/children ought to be interrogated at a neutral place i.e. Police Station whereas the officers wanted to interrogate them at the site – The endeavours of the appellant were not to impede interrogation but to ensure it was conducted in a more effective manner, moreover, no force was used to take the labourers away as per their statements – The FIR was a product of malice and personal vendetta against the appellants – Thus, ingredients of offence under Section 186 is not fulfilled, even assuming the ingredients under Section 186 are disclosed, prosecution under the said section simplicitor suffers from various insurmountable legal hurdles. [Paras 18, 30] Penal Code, 1860 – s.353 – Whether the Chargesheet discloses the ingredients of offence under s.353:
Held: Essential ingredients of offence under Section 353 are (i) Use of assault or criminal force on a public servant during execution of his duty. (ii) With the intention-(a) to prevent or deter discharge of such duty; or (b) as a consequence of anything done or attempted to be done in the lawful discharge of his duty – Physical movement of the labourers would not amount to use of force far less criminal force on a public servant. [Paras 19, 24]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.155 and 195 – Whether the registration of FIR and subsequent cognizance taken, is bad in law:
Held: Section 186 is a non-cognizable offence and in absence of ingredients of Section 353 (cognizable offence) disclosed in the FIR, prior permission of Magistrate under Section 155 (2) Cr.P.C was necessary to register FIR, since no such permission was obtained rendering the registration of FIR and ensuing investigation bad in law – Moreover, cognizance of offence under Section 186 IPC was taken on a police report, Section 195, inter alia, provides no court shall take cognizance of offence under Section 186 save and except on a complaint in writing by the aggrieved public servant or his superior – Since the cognizance taken of the offence under section 186 on a police report/chargesheet thus it is bad in law. [Paras 31,32]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Gaurav Upadhyay, Hony. Associate Editor (Verified by: Abhinav Mukerji, Sr. Adv.) 2025 SCC OnLine SC 7. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.