Himachal Pradesh High Court
Date Of Decision: 3.10.2024 vs State Of Hp & Anr on 3 October, 2024
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
2024:HHC:9760
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No.16 of 2021
Date of Decision: 3.10.2024
_______________________________________________________
Manju Jaryal
.......Petitioner
Versus
State of HP & Anr.
... Respondents
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Kumari Suri, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional
Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan,
Deputy Advocate General for respondent-
State.
_______________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):
By way of instant petition, prayer has been made by the
petitioner for quashing of order dated 21.1.2020, passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-2, District Una, Himachal
Pradesh, whereby court concerned having taken note of the Kalandra
filed by respondent No.2 under Sections 186 and 189 of Indian Penal
Code, against the petitioner for her having allegedly obstructed the
police from discharging its duties, proceeded to issue direction to the
police to register case under the relevant provisions, as well as
consequent proceedings pending adjudication in the competent court
of law.
2024:HHC:9760
2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the
record are that Women Police Station Una, filed an application in the
court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-II, District Una,
Himachal Pradesh, seeking therein permission to initiate the
proceedings under Sections 186 and 189 of the IPC, against the
petitioner-accused Manju Jaryal for her allegedly having caused
obstruction in the official work of the Police in case FIR No. 135/19
dated 16.11.2019, under sections 376, 354, 292, 420, 389, 506,
498A, 465, 468, 471 and 120B IPC and Sections 65, 66A, 66E, 67
and 67A of the Information and Technology Act, registered at PS
Gagret, District Una, Himachal Pradesh.
3. Allegedly, the petitioner accused accompanied Ranjodh
Parmar, who was summoned to the Police Station by the police, but
while police was talking to Ranjodh Parmar, petitioner started
interfering and allegedly, told the police that they cannot do anything
as they have contacts in the government. While police asked the
accused Manju Jaryal not to cause obstruction in the police work and
asked her to leave the premises, she threatened to get the
Investigating Officer transferred and dismissed and thereafter, left the
police Station. In the aforesaid background, police filed an application
in the competent court of law seeking therein permission to prosecute
the petitioner under Sections 186 and 189 of IPC in the learned
2024:HHC:9760
Judicial Magistrate First Class-2, District Una, Himachal Pradesh.
Afore court taking note of the allegations contained in the application
detailed herein above, proceeded to pass impugned order dated
21.1.2020, thereby granting necessary permission to initiate
proceedings against the petitioner under the relevant provision of law.
In the aforesaid background, petitioner has approached this Court in
the instant proceedings. Since order impugned in the instant
proceedings was not stayed, police after having completed necessary
investigation launched prosecution against the petitioner and as per
the status report filed by the respondent-State, case is listed for
prosecution evidence.
4. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been
highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by learned counsel
for the petitioner is that no case much less under Sections 186 and
189 is made out against the petitioner because at no point of time,
she obstructed the police officials from discharging their official duty,
rather she allegedly after extending threats that she will get the
Investigating Officer transferred left the police station. While making
this Court peruse Sections 186 and 189, Mr. Suri argued that
whoever voluntarily obstructs any public servant in the discharge of
his public functions, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to three months or fine. He
2024:HHC:9760
further submitted that as per Section 189, any person whoever holds
out any threat of injury to any public servant can be charged with the
aforesaid provision of law, but in the instant case, neither any
obstruction was caused in discharge of public function by the police
official nor she extended any threat of injury, rather she simply
claimed that she will get the I.O. transferred as she has connection
with the high-ups. While making this Court peruse order dated
21.1.2020, whereby court concerned granted permission to police to
register case under the relevant provisions against the petitioner-
accused, Mr. Suri vehemently argued that there is no application of
mind, rather court has verbatim reproduced the contents of the
complaint and without verifying the correctness of the same,
proceeded to order registration of the case, which is wholly
impermissible in the law.
5. To the contrary, Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional
Advocate General, supported the impugned order and registration of
the case against the petitioner under Sections 186 and 189 IPC.
While making this Court peruse contents of the complaint, on the
basis of which, impugned order came to be passed, Mr. Verma,
vehemently argued that once petitioner-accused unauthorizedly
entered the Police Station and extended threats to get the
Investigating Officer transferred, such act of her amounts to clear cut
2024:HHC:9760
obstruction in discharge of official duty and as such, no illegality can
be said to have been committed by the police while registering case
under Sections 186 and 189 of the IPC, against the petitioner.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
material available on record, this Court finds that FIR No. 135/19
dated 16.11.2019, under sections 376, 354, 292, 420, 389, 506,
498A, 465, 468, 471 and 120B IPC and Sections 65, 66A, 66E, 67
and 67A of the Information and Technology Act, PS Gagret, District
Una, Himachal Pradesh, was registered against person namely
Shubham Parmar at PS Gagret. Bail petition filed by above named
Shubham Parmar was dismissed by this Court and as such, he had
gone to Delhi to file SLP before the Hon'ble Apex Court, but in the
meanwhile, Police of Police Station Gagret, summoned his relatives
to the Police Station. Petitioner-accused Manju Jaryal, who at the
relevant time, was Pradhan of the concerned Gram Panchayat
accompanied Sh. Ranjodh Parmar, uncle of the Shubham Parmar to
the Police Station. Allegedly, while police was talking to above
named Ranjhodh Parmar, petitioner started interfering and allegedly
told the police that they cannot do anything as they have contacts in
the government. Allegedly, petitioner accused threatened to get the
I.O. transferred and dismissed and thereafter, left the police station,
after being asked by the police officials.
2024:HHC:9760
7. Question which needs to be decided in the instant
proceedings is, "whether aforesaid conversation, if any, inter-se
petitioner and the complainant can be termed to be an "obstruction"
in terms of Section 186 of not?"
8. To find out answer to aforesaid question, it would be apt
to take note of Section 186 IPC, which reads as under:
"186. Obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions.--
Whoever voluntarily obstructs any public servant in the discharge of his
public functions, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may
extend to five hundred rupees, or with both."
9. Careful perusal of Section 186 IPC reveals that whoever
voluntarily obstructs any public servant in discharge of his public functions,
shall be punished with imprisonment for a term, which may extend to three
months, or with fine which may extend to ₹500/-, or with both.
10. Section 189 IPC specifically talks about threat of injury to any
public servant, or to any person in whom he believes that public servant to
be interested, for the purpose of including that public servant to do any act,
or to forbear or delay to do any act, connected with the exercise of the
public functions of such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment
for either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine,
or with both.
11. If the Kalandra is read in its entirety, there is nothing to
suggest that save and except, alleged threat, if any, given by the petitioner
2024:HHC:9760
that she will get the I.O. transferred from the present place of posting,
nothing had happened on the spot, rather, thereafter, police kept on
interrogating the family members of Mr. Shubham Parmar.
12. In order to make out an offence punishable under Section 186
IPC, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to show that (i) accused
voluntarily obstructed a public servant and (ii) such obstruction was caused
in discharge of public function of such public servant. The term "voluntarily"
contemplate the commission of some overt act; mere passive conduct of a
person would not amount to causing obstruction. In the present case, it is
none of the case of the prosecution that petitioner obstructed the Police
official from discharging his duty on the spot, rather, she threatened him to
get the I.O. transferred.
13. No doubt, expression "obstruction" does not necessarily mean
physical obstruction, but in my view, any action accompanied by either
show or force or threat or having the effect of obstructing the public servant
from carrying out his duty, would constitute 'obstruction' for the purpose of
Section 186 of IPC. In the instant case, Police officer was never obstructed
in any manner in discharge of his duty, rather, he ignoring the threats, if
any, extended by the petitioner-accused, kept on interrogating family
members of the accused. Mere protesting or using intemperate language
without an overt act, will not be an offence punishable under Section 186 of
IPC. Passive conduct without disturbing a public servant in discharge of his
functions or duties will not amount to voluntarily obstructing a public servant
within the meaning of Section 186 of IPC. In this regard, reliance is placed
2024:HHC:9760
upon judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Surinder
Singh Chauhan Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2002 (1) CurLJ 332.
14. There is no allegation that petitioner made any threat of
causing any injury or to the Police official, as such, offence under Section
189 IPC is not made out. In the instant case, allegedly petitioner extended
threats that she would get him transferred from the present place of posting
to some other place, but such words, if spoken, may not constitute offence
punishable under Section 189 of IPC.
15. Consequently, in view of detailed discussion made
hereinabove, as well as law taken into consideration, this Court finds merit
in the present petition and accordingly same is allowed and order dated
21.1.2020, passed in CrMA Reg. No. 204/20, passed by the learned JMFC,
Court No.II, District Una, Himachal Pradesh and Kalandra No. 2 of 2020,
under Sections 186 and 189 of Indian Penal Code pending adjudication
before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Una, District Una,
Himachal Pradesh, are quashed and set aside. Accused is acquitted of the
charge framed against her. Petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms,
along with pending applications, if any.
(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge
October 3, 2024
manjit
VIKRANT
HIMACHAL PRADESH, OU=
JUDICIARY, Phone=
5d2f851af76d452c04fe80af0eb04901ba
ccf523a962b5b328d35fb9075dbbb0,
CHANDE
PostalCode=171001, S=Himachal
Pradesh, SERIALNUMBER=
b9ba41101dabcec1188a4f694ff769b34
ac01c5f3677265199bb13a3810dec17,
CN=VIKRANT CHANDEL
L Reason: I am approving this document
Location:
Date: 2024.10.16 09:45:26+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.2.0
