Supreme Court quashes prosecution against NGO workers, holds sections 353 not made out and 186 procedurally barred

A bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi heard an appeal against a cryptic High Court order dated 02.07.2015 which had refused to quash Crime No. 93 of 2014 registered under Sections 186 and 353 IPC. The appeal arose from an incident during a raid to rescue alleged bonded and child labour at a brick kiln in Varanasi and challenged the continuation of criminal proceedings against two members of an anti‑trafficking organisation.

The Court allowed the appeal and quashed the prosecution. It held that the uncontroverted allegations in the chargesheet did not disclose the ingredients of Section 353 IPC because there was no use of force or gesture creating an apprehension of force against public servants, and that prosecution under Section 186 IPC suffered from fatal legal defects because it was a non‑cognizable offence registered without the requisite magistrate’s permission and in breach of Section 195 Cr.P.C. The Court emphasised the protective role of inherent powers of High Courts to prevent abuse of process and to spare litigants from unmeritorious prosecutions. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “When profile of the allegations emerging from the factual matrix of the case renders existence of mens rea patently absurd or inherently improbable, such prosecution is liable to be quashed as an abuse of process of law.” The Court also noted that the High Court had treated factual disputes as decisive at the Section 482 stage, observing that the High Court had said: “the disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage,” a view the Supreme Court found insufficient without examination of whether the uncontroverted allegations disclosed any offence.

Background
The dispute began when the first appellant, a project coordinator of Guria  an NGO engaged in rescue of trafficked and exploited children and labourers filed a complaint to the District Magistrate, Varanasi, alleging bonded/child labour at Shakti Mark brick kiln. Pursuant to administrative directions, Labour Enforcement Officers and Anti‑Human Trafficking Force personnel inspected the site on 06.06.2014 with the appellants. A difference of opinion arose as to procedure: the appellants wished to take labourers and children to the police station for interrogation, while the officers proposed recording statements at the site. The appellants allegedly placed labourers and children in a dumper and removed them before statements were recorded. The informant lodged an FIR alleging obstruction and use of force, leading to registration under Sections 186, 353 and initially 363 IPC; the 363 count was later dropped and a chargesheet under Sections 186 and 353 followed.

The High Court declined to quash the chargesheet on the basis that factual disputes could not be resolved under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and observed that the appellants could seek discharge at trial. The Supreme Court held that before declining interference a High Court must first ascertain whether uncontroverted allegations disclose an offence or whether proceedings were vitiated by legal bar or mala fides. Applying definitions of force, criminal force and assault under the IPC, the Court concluded that the chargesheet lacked allegations of assault or criminal force against public servants and that witness statements negated any mens rea to obstruct official duty; the labourers stated no force was used and were promptly released. The Court found material indicating departmental hostility and “malicious animus” in reports submitted by labour officials, which corroborated that registration of the criminal case was actuated by malice and personal vendetta. Independently, the Court held that Section 186 being non‑cognizable required prior magistrate permission (or could not be proceeded with without compliance with procedural safeguards) and that cognizance taken on a police report conflicted with Section 195 Cr.P.C.; the explanatory fiction in Section 2(d) Cr.P.C. did not cure the statutory bar. For these reasons the prosecution was quashed, the appeal was allowed and pending applications were disposed of.

Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 439 of 2018
Case Title: Umashankar Yadav & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Through Chief Secretary & Anr.