No Cognizance Under Ipc 186 Based On Police Report: Supreme Court

In a historic judgment to check the abuse of criminal law against social workers, the Supreme Court of India struck down criminal proceedings against the members of the anti-trafficking NGO Guria. The case was a 2014 event in which the NGO helped free underage labourers and bonded labourers from a Varanas brick kiln. The accused were prosecuted under Sections 186 (obstructing public servant in discharge of duty) and 353 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Background of the Case

• The case had originated in a complaint by the NGO workers on the illegal hiring of child labourers and bonded labourers at a Varanasi brick kiln. A joint investigation team was constituted to check into the allegations. A disagreement ensued when the team refused to record the statements of the rescued labourers at the brick kiln premises. The NGO staff, in disagreement with this order, shifted the labourers in a dumper truck to a safe place, refusing to allow statements to be taken at the police station.
• Subsequent to this rift, an FIR was filed against the NGO employees, alleging they had hindered public servants and employed criminal force. They were accused of defying instructions of the officials and trying to hinder the investigation.

Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings

When the High Court of Allahabad refused to dismiss the FIR against them, the NGO's members turned to the Supreme Court. The case came up before a bench headed by Justices P.S. Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi. In a sharply worded verdict, the Court shut down the criminal proceedings, calling them "vexatious," legally unsustainable, and inspired by "malice."

The Court held that there was no force or threat element in the appellants' actions to bring Section 353 IPC into play. Instead, their insistence on investigating the interrogation elsewhere was viewed as a sincere, albeit well-intentioned, difference of opinion with the officials that was not done with intent to obstruct.

Justice Bagchi, who wrote the judgment, observed:

Apart from stating that it was the manner and method of interrogation that had to be decided on by the labour officers, the appellants were not going to prevent the interrogation taking place, but to ensure it was done more effectively. Such state of facts strips their act of the necessary mens rea, i.e. the intention to obstruct official duty.

He also added that where factual allegations render existence of criminal intent "patently absurd or inherently improbable," prosecution is an abuse of the legal process and must be quashed. 

Cognizance Under Section 186 IPC Impermissible Without Proper Complaint

• One of the serious legal matters discussed by the Court was the way cognizance was accepted under Section 186 IPC. The Court has noted that Section 195 of the CrPC expressly prohibits courts from considering offenses committed under Section 186 IPC unless the offended public servant or the authority in charge of such public servant files a written complaint.
• In the current case, no such complaint was lodged. Rather, the police made a report on the basis of which cognizance was taken, which the Court found to be procedurally defective.

The bench observed:

" In violation of Section 195 CrPC, recognition of an offense under Section 186 IPC was based on a police report.  Among other things, Section 195 states that a court cannot consider an offense under Section 186 unless the offended public servant or his superior files a written complaint."

While Section 2(d) of the CrPC does permit a police report revealing a non-cognizable offence to be accepted as a complaint in specific instances, the Court explained that such legal fiction cannot trump the special requirement under Section 195.

"Even so, the legal embargo under section 195 Cr.PC is not removed as the legal fiction renders the police officer and not the offended public servant as the complainant," added the Court.

A Victory for Human Rights Workers

• This ruling is being celebrated as a triumph for human rights activists and NGOs who are involved in sensitive rescue operations. The Supreme Court reiterated the importance of mens rea in assessing culpability and the requirement to follow the rules of procedure strictly, especially when considering prosecution under provisions like sections 186 IPC.
• By dismissing the proceedings, the Court has ensured that people engaged in efforts to protect vulnerable groups from harm can do so without fear of being harassed or prosecuted without cause.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court judgment in Umashankar Yadav & Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh not only gives relief to the accused NGO activists but also serves as a powerful message about misuse of criminal laws against those who are working in public interest. It emphasizes due process, adherence to procedure, and intent in the dispensation of criminal justice.

This ruling stands as a precedent for the protection of legal dissent and constructive action, preventing justice from being used as a means of harassment or stifling social activism.

Sharks of Law offers a comprehensive legal solutions facility, providing an extensive collection of information on diverse areas of law in the legal field by the best professionals in this area. With this law firm, you can search and find a lawyer who can meet your legal requirements for online consultation. The attorneys at Sharks of Law have the necessary expertise across all the fields involved should you have any inquiries that require legal counsel.

Email:-helpdesk@sharksoflaw.com

Help Desk:-+91-88770-01993