Cognizance Of Offence Under S.186 IPC Can't Be Taken On Police Report/Chargesheet: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings against members of the anti-trafficking NGO Guria, accused of obstructing officials (S. 186 IPC) and using criminal force (S. 353 IPC) during a 2014 rescue of bonded and child labourers from a Varanasi brick kiln.

The bench comprising Justices PS Narsimha and Joymalya Bagchi quashed the case, holding that the prosecution was "vexatious," legally unsustainable, and borne out of "malice”.

The Court said that Section 353 IPC requires assault/criminal force against a public servant; however, no allegation of force or threat was found on the part of the Appellants. Regarding the allegations of obstructing a public servant from duty, the Court found that the appellants' actions (insisting on interrogation at the police station) were deemed a bona fide disagreement, not obstruction with malicious intent.

The NGO workers had lodged a complaint regarding the employment of child labourers and bonded labourers in a brick kiln in Varanasi. The criminal case was filed against the accused, alleging that they disobeyed the joint investigation team directive to record the labourers' statement at the brick factory itself. Disagreeing with the investigation team's directive, the Appellants removed the labourers from the brick factory in a dumper.

Aggrieved by the High Court's refusal to quash the FIR, the Appellants approached the Supreme Court.

Setting aside the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Bagchi observed:

“It goes without saying the manner and mode of interrogation was to be decided by the labour officers but appellants' endeavours were not to impede interrogation but to ensure it was conducted in a more effective manner. Such factual position denudes their action of the requisite mens rea, i.e. intention to obstruct official duty. When profile of the allegations emerging from the factual matrix of the case renders existence of mens rea patently absurd or inherently improbable, such prosecution is liable to be quashed as an abuse of process of law.”

Cognizance Taken Under S. 186 IPC Is Impermissible On Police Report 

The Court also highlighted a procedural flaw, stating that offences under Section 186 IPC require a complaint from the aggrieved public servant or their superior. In this case, however, the FIR was filed by the police, not the concerned public servant.

“Secondly, cognizance of offence under Section 186 IPC was taken on a police report in breach of Section 195 Cr.PC. 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. In view of the aforesaid legal bar, cognizance taken of the offence under section 186 on a police report/chargesheet is impermissible in law.”, the Court clarified.

“As per the explanation appended to the definition clause, a police report disclosing a non-cognizable offence (section 186 in the present case) shall be deemed to be a complaint and the police officer shall be deemed to be the complainant. Even then, the legal embargo under section 195 Cr.PC is not dispelled as the legal fiction deems the police officer and not the aggrieved public servant as the complainant”, the court added.

In terms of the aforesaid, the Court allowed the appeal and quashed the pending criminal case against the Appellants.

Case Title: Umashankar Yadav & Anr. Versus State of Uttar Pradesh

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 551

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Ms. Aparna Bhat, Sr. Adv.(Arguing Counsel) Ms. Rajkumari Banju, AOR Ms. Madhulika Mohta, Adv. Ms. Karishma Maria, Adv. Mr. Gopal Krishna, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Ajay Kumar Mishra, AG,Sr. Adv.(Arguing Counsel) Mr. Garvesh Kabra, AOR Mrs.Pooja Kabra, Adv. Mr. Amit Singh, Adv.