Mere Protesting Or Using Bad Language Does Not Constitute Obstruction Of Public Servant: Himachal Pradesh High Court
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that mere protest or use of intemperate language against a public servant, in the absence of any overt act that actually obstructs the discharge of official duties, does not constitute an offence under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The Court observed that while “obstruction” need not necessarily be physical, the prosecution must establish an act involving force, threat, or an actual effect of preventing the public servant from carrying out his duties. Passive conduct, without disturbing the public servant in the discharge of official functions, cannot amount to voluntary obstruction under Section 186 IPC.
Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked that: “Mere protesting or using intemperate language, without an overt act, will not be an offense punishable under Section 186 of Indian Penal Code. Passive conduct without disturbing a public servant in discharge of his functions or duties will not amount to voluntarily obstructing a public servant within the meaning of Section 186 of Indian Penal Code.”
Background:
The petitioners had approached the High Court seeking quashing of a Kalandra registered under Sections 186 and 189 IPC. The case arose after police officials stopped the petitioners' vehicle during a naka and issued challans for alleged violations under the Motor Vehicles Act, including installation of LED lights. The police alleged that the petitioners made allegations against the officials and thereby obstructed them in the discharge of their duties.
he Court found that the petitioners had stopped their vehicle when signalled by the police and had produced the required documents. Despite the alleged remarks against the police officials, the police were able to perform their duty and proceeded to issue the challan. The Court therefore found no material demonstrating that the petitioners had actually prevented or dissuaded the police official from discharging his public function.
The Court emphasised that Section 186 IPC requires voluntary obstruction of a public servant in the discharge of a public function. It held that the expression “voluntarily” contemplates an overt act and that mere passive conduct does not amount to obstruction.
The Court further observed that while obstruction need not necessarily be physical, there must be an act involving force, threat, or an effect that actually obstructs the public servant from carrying out his duties.
Holding that the basic ingredients of Section 186 IPC were absent and that the chances of conviction were remote, the Court concluded that continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
It accordingly quashed the Kalandra and the consequential proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jubbal, and acquitted the accused of the charges.
Case Name: Sanjay Kumar Khanna v/s State of H.P. & anr.
Case No.: CrMMO No. 954 of 2024
Date of Decision: 28.07.2026