The Supreme Court set aside criminal proceedings against members of the anti-trafficking NGO Guria, who were charged under Sections 186 and 353 of the IPC for allegedly obstructing public officials and using criminal force during a 2014 operation to rescue bonded and child labourers from a brick kiln in Varanasi.
NGO workers had reported the use of child and bonded labour at a Varanasi brick kiln. A criminal case was filed against them for allegedly defying a directive to record labourers' statements on-site and instead removing the labourers in a dumper. After the High Court declined to quash the FIR, the appellants approached the Supreme Court for relief.
The Bench of Justice PS Narsimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed, “It goes without saying the manner and mode of interrogation was to be decided by the labour officers but appellants’ endeavours were not to impede interrogation but to ensure it was conducted in a more effective manner. Such factual position denudes their action of the requisite mens rea, i.e. intention to obstruct official duty. 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.”
“Secondly, cognizance of offence under Section 186 IPC was taken on a police report in breach of Section 195 Cr.PC. Section 195, inter alia, provides no court shall take cognizance of offence under Section 186 save and except on a complaint in writing by the aggrieved public servant or his superior. In view of the aforesaid legal bar, cognizance taken of the offence under section 186 on a police report/chargesheet is impermissible in law.” the Court added.
The Court stated that according to the explanation in the definition clause, a police report indicating a non-cognizable offence (such as Section 186 IPC) is treated as a complaint, and the police officer as the complainant. However, this does not override the legal requirement under Section 195 CrPC, which mandates that only the aggrieved public servant can file a complaint—meaning the legal bar still applies.
The Court upheld the appeal and quashed the ongoing criminal proceedings against the Appellants.
Read Here: