10 May 2025 Legal Updates

Cognizance of offence under section 186 IPC can’t be taken on police report/chargesheet: Supreme Court

(a) Case Title:

• Umashankar Yadav & Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India

(c) Date of Decision:

• May 08, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Justices PS Narsimha and Joymalya Bagchi

The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings against members of the anti-trafficking NGO Guria, who were accused under Sections 186 (obstructing public servants) and 353 (assault/criminal force against public servants) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) during a 2014 rescue operation of bonded and child laborers from a Varanasi brick kiln. Key facts include:

Background of the Case

• NGO workers filed a complaint about child and bonded laborers at a brick kiln in Varanasi.
• During the rescue, the NGO members disagreed with a joint investigation team’s directive to record laborer statements at the site, insisting on interrogation at the police station. They transported laborers in a dumper, leading to criminal charges.

Supreme Court’s Findings

1. Section 353 IPC:

• The court ruled no evidence of assault/criminal force by the appellants. The allegations lacked proof of malicious intent to obstruct duty.

2. Section 186 IPC:

• The prosecution was procedurally flawed. Cognizance under this section requires a complaint from the aggrieved public servant or their superior, not a police report. The FIR’s basis violated Section 195 of the Cr.PC.

3. Mens Rea Absence:

• The appellants’ actions (insisting on police station interrogation) were deemed a bona fide disagreement to ensure effective investigation, not obstruction with malicious intent.

Court’s Decision

• The bench (Justices PS Narsimha and Joymalya Bagchi) labeled the prosecution “vexatious” and legally unsustainable, quashing the criminal case. The High Court’s earlier refusal to dismiss the FIR was overturned.

Procedural Irregularity

• The court clarified that even if a police report is treated as a complaint (under Cr.PC explanations), the legal requirement for a complaint by the public servant under Section 195 remains unfulfilled.