Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1) The date of commission of offence : 29.03.2013

2) The name of the complainant : Sh. Rajesh Kumar

3) The name & parentage of accused : Rakesh Kumar S/o Late Sh. Bhudev Prasad

4) Offence complained of : u/S 186/332/353/506-II IPC

5) The plea of accused : Not guilty

6) Final order : Convicted u/S 353 IPC & 506-II IPC and Acquitted u/S 186 IPC and 332 IPC Date of institution of Case : 13.10.2015 Judgment reserved on : 06.02.2026 Judgment pronounced on : 23.02.2026 BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT:

2026.02.23 17:10:28 +0530 come on record that the accused was not known to them prior to the date of incident.

18. Section 186 IPC provides punishment for 'obstructing public servant in discharge of public function'. In the said provision the expression whoever voluntarily obstructs any public servant in discharge of his public function is used. The word 'obstruction' is not confined to physical obstruction. It need not be an act of criminal force. The act need not be a violent one. It is enough if the act complained of results in preventing a public servant in discharge of his lawful duties. Any act of causing impediment by unlawfully preventing public servant in discharge of his functions would be enough to attract section 186 IPC.

19. There is certain precondition attached with prosecution of section 186 IPC. U/s 195(1)(a) CrPC there is an express bar for the court to take cognizance of offence punishable u/S 186 IPC and provides that there shall be a complaint made in writing by the public servant or by any other public servant to whom he is subordinate. It had been held that 'non-compliance of the requirements of section 195 CrPC is fatal to the prosecution for offence punishable u/S 186 IPC.' In the present case, the written complaint u/s 195 CrPC Ex. A-2 has already been placed on record.

                                                                     GARG       2026.02.23
                                                                                17:10:34
                                                                                +0530

not parked properly, and in the absence of any evidence to demonstrate that the accused actually prevented the issuance of challan or caused any effective obstruction in discharge of official duty, it cannot be concluded that the accused caused any obstruction to PW-1 or PW-2 in discharge of their duty. The mere act of questioning authority or showing reluctance, in absence of proof that official duty was actually impeded, is insufficient to sustain conviction under Section 186 IPC. The benefit of doubt must therefore go to the accused for this charge. Accordingly, the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt, the guilt of the accused qua the offence u/S 186 IPC.