Back
2025 Supreme(HP) 1183
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
State of Himachal Pradesh - Appellant
Versus
Rakesh Walia Alias Khattu - Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 328 of 2014
Decided On : 24-09-2025
For the Appellant :Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General.
For the Respondent:M/s Sanjeev Sood, Rahul Gahtania, Advocates.
Threat of transfer not 'injury' under IPC s.189 as no illegal harm; supervising cleanliness not public function, mere threat sans overt act no obstruction under s.186. Acquittal upheld as reasonable view taken by trial court.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 186 and 189 - Obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions and threat of injury to public servant - Accused threatened complainant supervising cleanliness of station compound with transfer - Held, threat of transfer not “injury” as defined u/s 44 (illegal harm to body, mind, reputation or property), transfer being incident of service without penal/civil consequences - Supervising cleanliness not “public function”; mere threat/use of intemperate language without overt act not “voluntary obstruction” u/s 186 - Offences not proved beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 15-25)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 378 - Appeal against acquittal - Appellate court has full power to review evidence but must bear double presumption of innocence; interference only if judgment patently perverse, based on misreading/omission of material evidence, or no reasonable view possible and only guilt view sustainable - Trial court took reasonable view, hence no interference. (Paras 13-14, 26)
Facts of the case:
Complainant was supervising cleanliness of station compound when servant of accused wasted water; accused arrived, threatened transfer via influence to stop instructions on rubbish/gate; witnesses present; trial court acquitted of offences u/ss 186/189 IPC holding no injury threatened, cleanliness not official duty, no overt obstruction, contradictions; state appealed asserting improper appreciation, threat obstructed duties.
Findings of Court:
No threat of injury to induce act/omission; no obstruction of public function; trial court view reasonable.
Issues: Whether threat of transfer constitutes “injury” u/s 189 IPC to induce public servant; whether supervising cleanliness is “public function” and threat amounts to “obstruction” u/s 186; scope of interference in acquittal appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: “Injury” u/s 44 requires illegal harm; transfer not offence/prohibited/ground for civil action - Cited precedent holding threat to stop pension not injury. Public servant must be obstructed in public functions via overt act/show of force, not mere verbal threat/protest; cleanliness supervision not official duty. Acquittal appeal interference limited to perversity/no reasonable view.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accused threatened sho over water waste and gate. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. trial court acquitted for lacking offence ingredients. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. state argues trial court perversely discarded evidence. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. defence supports reasonable acquittal view. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 5. interfere with acquittal only if patently perverse. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 6. transfer threat not 'injury' under section 189 ipc. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 7. mere threat without overt act not section 186 obstruction. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 8. appeal dismissed upholding trial acquittal. (Para 27 , 28) |
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31.03.2014 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehra, District Kangra, H.P., vide which the respondent (accused before the learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 186 and 189 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)
2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the present appeal are that the complainant, SI Joginder Singh (PW4), was checking the cleanliness of the police station compound on 10.10.2009 at 8:10 A.M. A servant of the accused had placed a tub beneath the tap, which was overflowing. The S.H.O. advised the servant not to waste water or open the gate. The accused arrived at the scene. The complainant requested that the accused refrain from throwing rubbish into the police station compound and from opening the police station gate, as cattle entered the compound through the open gate. The accused became angry and threatened the informant with transfer. ASI Vijay Kumar (PW1), HC Hari Singh, MHC Sultan Singh, Constable Sushil Kumar (PW3), Constable Pawan Kumar, and Constable Vishambhar Singh Singh witnessed the incident. The accused obstructed the complainant in the exercise of his official duties. An entry (Ex.PW1/A) was made at the police station. An application was submitted to the Court for permission to investigate the matter. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehra, granted permission by order dated 13.10.2009 (Ex. PW4/B). The investigation was carried out, a site plan (Ex. PW4/C) was prepared, statements of prosecution witnesses were recorded as per their accounts, and after completing the investigation, a complaint was filed before the Court.
3. Learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, notice of accusation was put to him for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 186 and 189 of the IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution examined four witnesses to prove its case.
5. ASI Vijay Kumar (PW1), Babu Ram (PW2) and Sunil (PW3) are the eyewitnesses. Joginder Singh (PW4) is the complainant.
6. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) admitted that Joginder Singh was serving as SI/S.H.O. He stated that the police used his vehicle, and when he demanded petrol charges, a false case was made against him. He tendered documents in the defence.
7. Learned Trial Court held that the complaint and the statement on oath did not show that the accused had threatened to cause any injury to informant Joginder Singh or any person in whom he was interested. The accused had merely told the complainant that he would be transferred. This is insufficient to constitute an offence punishable under Section 189 of the IPC. The S.H.O. was supervising cleanliness work in the compound, which was not shown to be a part of the official duty. Mere use of the intemperate language without any overt act did not constitute an offence punishable under Section 186 of the . There were various contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The police did not join any independent person, even though the police stati
