Prosecution under Sections 186 and 353 IPC quashed as uncontroverted allegations did not disclose necessary elements and the proceedings amounted to abuse of process of law.

JUDGMENT

Joymalya Bagchi, J.

1. Appellants have assailed a cryptic order dated 02.07.2015 whereby the High Court refused to quash Crime No.93 of 2014 under Sections 186 and 353 of INDIAN PENAL CODE [For short, ‘IPC’].

2. Guria is a well known and reputed organization fighting against human trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation of girls/children in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Due to its relentless efforts a number of minor girls have been rescued from the clutches of traffickers. While the pioneering efforts of the organization received accolades at national and international levels, its foot soldiers i.e. the appellants have suffered the ignominy of being branded as “criminals” for alleged overzealousness in course of a raid to rescue bonded labour/minor children from a brick kiln at Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh.

3. The unfortunate saga commenced when the first appellant, a Project Coordinator at Guria submitted an application before the District Magistrate, Varanasi alleging bonded/child labourers were engaged in a brick kiln at Varanasi and prayed that the exploited labourers including children be rescued. In response to the application, Deputy District Magistrate, Varanasi ordered Assistant Labour Commissioner to take necessary action.

4. Pursuant to the directions of the Assistant Labour Commissioner, on 06.06.2014 at 10 am, one Raja Ram Dubey [Informant], Ram Avatar Sharma and Ram Lakhan Swarnkar (Labour Employment Officers), Inspector Ajit Kumar Singh of Anti Human Trafficking Force (AHTF) and two constables of Lohta Thana Varanasi proceeded to inspect the spot. Appellants also accompanied the team.

5. Appellants contend they found children and labourers at the brick kiln who were brought to the Police Station. At that time the owner of the brick kiln intervened and took away the labourers. First appellant submitted a faxed message disclosing these facts to the District Magistrate.

6. On the other hand, informant lodged a complaint at Lohta Police Station though no child was found working at the spot, alleging when his team had reached Shakti Mark Brick Kiln, appellants along with others forcibly put the labourers and the children in dumpers and took them away. Appellants did not obey the instructions of the joint team and did not let them record their statements before taking away the labourers. Thereby they obstructed and hampered their discharge of official duty.

7. On his complaint, FIR came to be registered under Sections 186 , 353 and 363 IPC.

8. On further statement of one of the labourers, namely, Om Prakash, Section 363 IPC was dropped. Statements of other witnesses were recorded and charge sheet under Sections 186 and 353 IPC came to be filed. Magistrate took cognizance of the chargesheet which was assailed before the High Court. The High Court by the impugned order refused to quash the chargesheet holding as follows :-

“From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. At this stage only a prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. V