Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justices PS Narsimha and Joymalya Bagchi quashed the criminal case against NGO Guria members, terming it vexatious and malicious, finding no evidence of force or obstruction under Sections 186 and 353 of India Penal Code ,1860. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Justices PS Narsimha and Joymalya Bagchi (2025). 

What was the Background of Umashankar Yadav & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2025) Case ? 

• Guria is a well-known NGO in Uttar Pradesh that works against human trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation of girls and children. 
• Umashankar Yadav, a Project Coordinator at Guria, submitted an application to the District Magistrate of Varanasi alleging that bonded and child labourers were engaged at a brick kiln in Varanasi. 
• The District Magistrate directed the Assistant Labour Commissioner to take necessary action, who assembled a team of Labour Employment Officers and police personnel. 
• On 6th June, 2014, this team, accompanied by the appellants (NGO workers), proceeded to inspect the brick kiln. 
• During the inspection, a disagreement arose between the appellants and the officials regarding how to conduct the investigation. 
• The appellants wanted the labourers and children to be brought to the police station for interrogation, while the officials intended to record their statements at the site. 
• The appellants allegedly put the labourers and children in a dumper and took them away from the site before their statements could be recorded. 
• Raja Ram Dubey (a Labour Employment Officer) filed an FIR against the appellants under Sections 186 (obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions), 353 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of duty), and 363 (kidnapping) of the Indian Penal Code. 
• Section 363 was later dropped based on the statement of one of the labourers. 
• Criminal proceedings continued against the appellants under Sections 186 and 353 IPC. 
• The appellants approached the High Court to quash the FIR, but the court refused, stating that the issues involved disputed questions of fact which could not be adjudicated under Section 482 CrPC. 
• Aggrieved by the High Court's decision, the appellants approached the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court criticized the High Court's order as "cryptic" for not addressing the facts of the case or the contentions raised by the appellants. 
• The Court observed that summoning an accused is a serious matter affecting liberty and dignity of the individual concerned. 
• The Court stated that judicial intervention under Section 482 CrPC to weed out vexatious proceedings is of pivotal importance to protect individuals from untold harassment. 
• The Court noted that the inherent power of the High Court to prevent abuse of process is much wider in amplitude than discharge powers. 
• Regarding Section 353 IPC, the Court observed that the uncontroverted allegations did not disclose use of force or threatening gestures giving rise to apprehension of use of force towards a public servant. 
• The Court held that the physical movement of labourers would not amount to use of force, far less criminal force, on a public servant. 
• Regarding Section 186 IPC, the Court observed that obstruction to a public servant must be done with the requisite mens rea (intention) to prevent discharge of official duty. 
• The Court noted that the appellants' actions appeared to stem from a genuine difference of opinion rather than an intention to impede interrogation. 
• The Court observed that the appellants' endeavours were not to impede interrogation but to ensure it was conducted in a more effective manner. 
• The Court found that the hostile stance of the labour department suggested that the criminal case was a product of malice and personal vendetta against the appellants. 
• The Court identified procedural flaws: Section 186 is a non-cognizable offence requiring prior permission from a Magistrate under Section 155(2) CrPC to register an FIR, which was not obtained. 
• The Court emphasized that cognizance of an offence under Section 186 IPC can only be taken on a complaint in writing by the aggrieved public servant or their superior, not on a police report as was done in this case. 

What is Section 221 of ( Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) BNS ? 

• Section 221 prescribes punishment for voluntarily obstructing any public servant in the discharge of his public functions. 
• The offence carries imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand and five hundred rupees, or both. 
• This offence was previously covered under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code. 
• The essential elements of this offence require voluntary obstruction and intention to prevent discharge of official duties. 
• Mere disagreement or difference of opinion with a public servant regarding the manner of discharging duties does not constitute obstruction under this section. 
• The prosecution must establish mens rea (guilty intent) to prove obstruction of a public servant. 
• The obstruction must be voluntary and with the specific intention to prevent the public servant from discharging their official duties. 
• Where the alleged actions lack the requisite mens rea, the offence is not made out even if there is apparent interference. 
• This section does not cover situations where individuals act in good faith with alternative suggestions for how public duties might be discharged more effectively. 
• To establish an offence under this section, it must be shown that the accused deliberately impeded the official's function, not merely that they disagreed with the manner of execution. 
• This offence is non-cognizable, requiring prior permission of a Magistrate under Section 155(2) CrPC for police to register an FIR and investigate. 
• Cognizance of this offence can only be taken on a complaint in writing by the aggrieved public servant or their superior as per Section 195 CrPC, not on a police report. 
• The legal bar under Section 195 CrPC cannot be circumvented by treating a police report as a deemed complaint under the Explanation to Section 2(d) CrPC. 
• When the profile of allegations renders existence of mens rea patently absurd or inherently improbable, such prosecution may be quashed as an abuse of process of law.