B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in C. C. No, 120 of 1998 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, medchal, Ranga Reddy District. They invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this court and pray this Court to quash the proceedings in C. C. No. 120 of 1998 on the file of the said Court.

( 2 ) BEFORE adverting to the question as to whether the petitioners are entitled for any relief, it may be necessary to briefly notice few relevant facts for the purpose of disposal of this petition.

( 3 ) THE second respondent herein filed complaint before the learned Judicial First class Magistrate, Medchal inter alia alleging that on 30-12-1997 the inspection squad consisting of Sri. M. S. Rama Krishna and the complainant and one Sri Sharada manjunadh, Office Superintendent of the e. S. I, have visited the factory of the accused to conduct inspection under the E. S. I. Act and the Regulations made thereunder. On the said date, both the petitioners herein were present in the factory premises and attended on the Inspectors. It is the case of the respondent-complainant that the squad comprising of two Inspectors and one superintendent demanded the accused for production of registers and records required under E. S. I. Act and the regulations made thereunder. But the petitioners herein refused to produce the same. It is further alleged that the petitioners did not allow the said team to go round the factory for interrogating the workers in the factory. It is further alleged that the petitioners herein failed to produce complete set of Registers and records atleast for one accounting year and therefore, the inspection could not be conducted. When the Inspectors wanted to take extract of the balance sheet and other documents produced before them, the first accused refused to allow the inspection squad to do so. The petitioners have also refused to receive the visit note prepared by the inspection squad and the watchman did not allow the Inspection Squad to leave the factory until specific instructions of the accused were given.

( 4 ) ON 16-1-1998 again the inspection team including the complainant had been to jeedimetla Police Station and sought the help of the Station House Officer, jeedimetla Police Station for providing help of police personnel for entering the premises of the accused for conducting inspection. When the Inspectors along with two police constables and one Head constable went to the main gate of the factory and revealed their identity, the lady assistant by name Smt George came to the main gate and she did not allow the inspectors as well as the Police Constables to enter into the premises for conducting the Inspection under the E. S. I. Act. Even the representative of the accused did not open the gate. The other details mentioned in the complaint are not necessary to be noticed for the purpose of disposal of this petition.

( 5 ) THE learned Magistrate upon perusing the complaint and the sworn statement of the complainant took the case on file against the petitioners herein under Sec. 186 of i. P. C.

( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners sri Milind Gokhale contends that the whole of the complaint even if taken to be true does not reveal commission of any offence by the petitioners herein. It is submitted that the contents of the complaint even if read together as true would not attract sec. 186 of I. P. C. It is also urged by the learned Counsel that the petitioners herein are not liable for the action of obstruction if. any by their employees. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners that mere obstruction is not enough unless it is accompanied by use of some criminal force. . Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the expression obstruction used in Sec. 186 of i. P. C. no doubt connotes some overt act but not necessarily use of criminal force as such.

( 7 ) SRI B. C. Ravinder Reddy, learned standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-complainan

Click Here to Read the rest of this document