The main legal point established in the judgment is that for an offence under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution must prove that the accused voluntarily obstructed a public servant in the discharge of his public function. Mere protesting or using intemperate language without an overt act would not constitute obstruction.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

By way of instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of Kalandra under Section 186 of Indian Penal Code filed by the Police Station Sunni, District Shimla, H.P., as well as consequent proceedings pending adjudication in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. I, Shimla, District Shimla, HP in Kalandra No.1 of 2020 titled as State Vs. Sita Ram Sharma.

2. For having bird’s eye view, facts relevant for adjudication of the case at hand are that on 24.08.2019, respondent No. 2, who at the relevant time was Station House Officer, Police Station Sunni, was on traffic checking duty at Basantpur near Sunni alongwith other police officials. At around 02:30 p.m. a vehicle bearing registration No. HP-03C-1920 being driven by the petitioner came from Basantpur side. Since, driver of the vehicle was not wearing seat belt, he was signaled to stop, but allegedly vehicle was not stopped. However, after having finished traffic checking at Basantpur, respondent No. 2 alongwith other officials went towards Sunni and found vehicle bearing registration No. HP-03C-1920 parked near Rinku Bhojnalya/Eatery at Sunni. Respondent No. 2 inquired about the driver of the said vehicle, on which the person came out from the Dhaba and disclosed that he is owner of the vehicle. Respondent No. 2 told the person concerned i.e. petitioner herein that why he failed to stop despite signal. However, allegedly petitioner besides misbehaving with the Police official also went live on Facebook by making remarks that “I am Sita Ram Sharma, posted as Superintendent in the Himachal Pradesh Secretariat. My father was a freedom fighter and I am going to meet my old age mother. I stopped here to take tea and tea is in my hand. The Police is doing challan of my parked vehicle for no reason.”

3. Having taken note of aforesaid misbehaviour and obstruction in duty, respondent No. 2 after having obtained necessary permission from the Magistrate under Section 195 Cr.P.C prepared Kalandra under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code and presented the same in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. I, Shimla, District Shimla, HP, however, before doing aforesaid exercise, respondent No. 2 also challaned the petitioner under Sections 177 and 179 of Motor Vehicles Act for his having plied vehicle without wearing seat belt and disobeying the Police signal. Before aforesaid Kalandra could be taken to its logical end, petitioner has approached this court in the instant proceedings for quashing of FIR on the ground that no case much less under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code is made out.

4. Mr. Neeraj Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, while making this court peruse provisions contained under Section 186 of Indian Penal Code vis-a-vis allegations levelled against the petitioner, strenuously argued that at no point of time obstruction, if any, was caused by the petitioner to respondent No. 2, who allegedly at that relevant time was checking the vehicle alongwith Police officials. Mr. Sharma, while making this court peruse contents of Kalandra strenuously argued that as per own of the case of the prosecution, petitioner despite his being asked to stop, failed to stop his vehicle and thereafter, he refused to show his documents and in that regard, he was challaned under Sections 177 and 179 of Motor Vehicles Act. Mr. Sharma, submitted that at no point of time, petitioner misbehaved or obstructed respondent No. 2 from doing his duty. He submitted that since there is no evidence available on record suggestive of the fact that on the alleged date of incident obstruction, if any, was caused by the petitioner in discharge of public duty being performed by respondent No. 2, chances of conviction of the petitioner are very remote and bleak. Hence, continuance of proceedings under Section 186 of Indian Penal Code, which are otherwise