Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The record further shows that after filing of the charge sheet, cognizance was taken on 25.03.2017 for offences under Sections 353/452/506/34 IPC and also for offence under Section 186 IPC on the basis of the complaint under Section 195 CrPC. Copies of documents were supplied to the accused in compliance with Section 207 CrPC. Thereafter, arguments on charge were heard. The learned predecessor of this Court had expressed doubt regarding the applicability of Sections 353 and 452 IPC. Upon consideration of the charge sheet, the accompanying documents, and the submissions made on both sides, it was held vide order dated 04.08.2022 that the ingredients of Sections 353 and 452 IPC were not made out. Accordingly, charge was framed only under Sections 186/34 IPC and 506 IPC against all four accused. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

19. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and have gone through the entire record.

20. Since the accused have been charged for offences under Sections 186/34 IPC and 506 IPC, it is necessary to first notice the ingredients of these offences. For Section 186 IPC, the prosecution must prove that there was voluntary obstruction, that the obstruction was caused to a public servant, and that such public servant was discharging public functions at the relevant time. Since the charge is read with Section 34 IPC, the prosecution must also prove that the accused acted in furtherance of their common intention. For Section 506 IPC, the prosecution must prove that the accused criminally intimidated the complainant by threatening him with injury to person, reputation or property, and that such threat was intended to cause alarm or to compel the complainant to do or omit something which he was legally entitled to do or omit. In the present case, the identity of the accused as the persons who committed the acts complained of is a foundational requirement. Unless that is proved, the remaining ingredients cannot carry the prosecution to a conviction.

30. As far as Section 186 IPC is concerned, the prosecution has certainly proved that PW1 was a public servant and was present in the office for discharge of official duties on the relevant day. The office order and the depositions of PW1, PW2 and PW3 support that part of the case. It also appears from the evidence that some disturbance occurred in the office. But the essential and most critical element, namely, that these accused persons voluntarily caused such obstruction, has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Mere proof of a crowd incident cannot by itself result in conviction of the named accused unless their participation is clearly established.

31. The complaint under Section 195 CrPC, proved by PW4 as Ex.

PW4/A, satisfies the procedural requirement for cognizance of Digitally RAJ signed KUMAR by RAJ SINGH KUMAR SINGH STATE Vs. PRADEEP KUMAR ETC (Darya Ganj) Sections: 186/353/452 IPC offence under Section 186 IPC. However, PW4 himself had no personal knowledge of the facts and made the complaint only in his official capacity on departmental request. Such complaint is necessary for taking cognizance, but it is not substantive evidence of the guilt of the accused.