Resisting Own Medical Examination Does Not Amount To Obstructing Public Servant In Discharge Of Duties: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court recently observed that resisting a medical examination would not amount to the offence of obstructing a public servant in the discharge of public functions under Section 186 IPC.
The bench set aside the Bombay High Court's Nagpur bench order which refused to quash the FIR against the Appellant registered under Sections 186 and 189 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC') and under Sections 110 and 117 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 (for short, 'MP Act') for resisting against the holding of a medical examination by the police.
According to the prosecution,the appellant, who was working as a Lekhapal at the Forest Range Office in Paratwada, was allegedly found in an intoxicated state and creating a disturbance on May 4, 2021. She was taken to the Sub-District Hospital, Achalpur, for medical examination.
The prosecution alleged that she initially resisted the examination and created a disturbance. Blood was subsequently collected and the medical examination was completed.
The Supreme Court found that the allegations, even if accepted at their highest, did not satisfy the ingredients of the offences invoked against her.
Although the Appellant initially resisted the medical examination, she later underwent it.
Allowing her appeal, the Court said that “the act attributed to the appellant will not be covered in the phrase “voluntarily obstructs any public servants in the discharge of his public function” attracting offence under Section 186 of the IPC. The statements of the prosecution witnesses show that the appellant ultimately underwent the medical examination.”
The Court also held that Section 189 IPC was not attracted.
“Section 189 of the IPC is attracted where a person holds out a threat of injury to a public servant, or to a person in whom such public servant is interested, for the purpose of inducing such public servant to do an act, or to forbear or delay doing an act, connected with the exercise of his public functions.”, observed a bench of Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice Arun Palli.
Further, the Court noted that the requirements under the MP Act were also not attracted.
“Equally, we are at a loss to understand how Sections 110/112 and 117 of the MP Act are attracted… Section 110 of the MP Act prohibits, inter alia, the use of indecent language or behavior in a disorderly manner in a street, place of public resort, office, station or station house. Section 112 concerns the use of threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or whereby a breach of the peace may be occasioned. Section 117 of the MP Act prescribes the penalty for contravention of the provisions contained in Sections 99 to 116.”, the Court said.
As a result, the appeal was allowed, leading to the quashing of an FIR against the Appellant.
Cause Title: ASHWINI ANANTRAO DESHPANDE VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 859
Appearance:
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Subodh S. Patil, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR