Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Sections 307, 332 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code are concerned, the said offences cannot split and are arising out of a same transaction only but, the learned trial Court has wrongly come to the conclusion that the offence under Section 186 and the other offences of the Indian Penal Code can be split and hence, only discharged the present applicants for the offence punishable under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code and from the other offence under Sections 307, 332 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, the present applicants are not discharged.

16. Further, in the case of Pankaj Aggarwal v. State of Delhi reported in 2001 LawSuit (SC) 427, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in para 3 as under:-

"3. ..... But in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in AIR 1966 SC 1775 where the Court has analysed the provisions of Section 353, IPC and 186, IPC and held that the two are distinct offences and the quality of the offence is also different, we are of the opinion that judgment of the Pujab High Court is not correct in law and has taken a view contrary to the law laid down by this Court. What has been stated earlier in the aforesaid case in relation to the provisions of NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1052/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined Section 353, IPC would equally apply to the provisions of Section 332 of the IPC. This being the position, we are unable to accept the contention of Mr. Jain that the provisions of Section 195(1)(a)(i) bars taking cognizance of Section 332/34, IPC. We, however, agree with Mr. Jain that the order taking cognizance of section 186 of the IPC is bad in law and attracts the mischief of Section 195. In the aforesaid premises, we quash the criminal proceedings so far as the charge under Section 186 IPC is concerned and direct that the criminal proceedings would continue so far as the charge under section 332/34, IPC is concerned."

20. So, considering the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court, as discussed above and considering the facts of the present case, as per the charge-sheet and complaint, it appears that the present applicants - original accused have, while they were in Creta Car, took kerosene with them, which is a very highly inflammable and drive towards the Seva Sadan, at that time, when the witness nos.22 and 23 tried to stop them, those who were the police officers, to commit the offence of attempt of murder, the applicants have tried to run over the Creta car on the said persons and thereafter, when the other police officials, who were on the gate of Seva Sadan NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1052/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined building, tried to stop the car, they have not stopped there and subsequently, in the Seva Sadan, they came out from the car and sprinkled kerosene on themselves as well as the complainant and other witnesses also and thereby, committed the offence. Therefore, from the chargesheet and the complaint, it appears that the present applicants - accused have obstructed the public servants from performing their duty and also tried to run over the car on the police officials and also sprinkled kerosene on the witnesses and themselves. So, offence under Sections 307 and 332 of the Indian Penal Code is distinct offence from the offence under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code. So far as taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 186 of the IPC is concerned, it is bad in law and attracts bar of Section 195, but so far as the other offences are concerned, more particularly, Sections 307 and 332 of the Indian Penal Code, there is no bar under Section 195(1)(a)(i) of the Code to continue proceedings against the accused.

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1052/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined

21. From the chargesheet papers and the statements of witnesses as well as from the F.I.R., it clearly found that the offence under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code and other offences under Sections 307 and 332 of the Indian Penal Code are segregated and looking to the facts of the case, the learned Sessions Judge, while deciding the application partly, has already discharged the present applicants for the offence punishable under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code and rejected the discharge application qua the offence under Sections 307 and 332 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code.