The Supreme Court of India has quashed criminal proceedings against members of the anti-human trafficking NGO Guria. These individuals were accused of obstructing public servants (under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code) and using criminal force (under Section 353 IPC) during a 2014 operation to rescue bonded and child labourers from a brick kiln in Varanasi.
The judgment was delivered by a bench of Justices PS Narsimha and Joymalya Bagchi. The Court strongly criticized the prosecution, calling it “vexatious, legally unsustainable, and borne out of malice.”
While examining the charges, the Court made it clear that Section 353 IPC requires there to be some assault or use of criminal force against a public servant. However, in this case, no such act of force or threat was found to have been committed by the accused NGO workers.
The Court also found that the NGO's actions did not show any criminal intention to obstruct official duties. The NGO workers merely wanted the rescued labourers to be interrogated at the police station rather than at the brick factory. This disagreement, according to the Court, was not malicious.
“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.”
The case began after the NGO workers, who had reported illegal child labour practices, removed the labourers from the factory in a dumper truck instead of allowing the joint investigation team to interrogate them at the site. The authorities then filed an FIR against the NGO workers, accusing them of disobeying official directions.
The Allahabad High Court refused to quash the FIR. Challenging this, the Appellants approached the Supreme Court.
In its decision, the Supreme Court not only dismissed the charges under Section 353 IPC but also addressed a significant procedural issue with the Section 186 IPC charge. According to the Court, cognizance of an offence under Section 186 IPC cannot be taken based on a police report or chargesheet.
Read Also:- Delhi High Court: Central Empowered Committee to Oversee Felling of 50 or More Trees
“Cognizance of offence under Section 186 IPC was taken on a police report in breach of Section 195 Cr.PC.”
The Court emphasized that Section 195 of the CrPC clearly states that for such offences, only a complaint in writing by the aggrieved public servant or their superior can be the basis for legal action—not a police report.
“Even then, the legal embargo under Section 195 CrPC is not dispelled as the legal fiction deems the police officer and not the aggrieved public servant as the complainant.”
This legal point proved decisive. Since no such valid complaint was made by the affected public servant or their superior, the Court ruled that the cognizance taken in this case was legally invalid.
Case Title: Umashankar Yadav & Anr. Versus State of Uttar Pradesh
Appearance:
For Appellant(s) : Ms. Aparna Bhat, Sr. Adv.(Arguing Counsel) Ms. Rajkumari Banju, AOR Ms. Madhulika Mohta, Adv. Ms. Karishma Maria, Adv. Mr. Gopal Krishna, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :Mr. Ajay Kumar Mishra, AG,Sr. Adv.(Arguing Counsel) Mr. Garvesh Kabra, AOR Mrs.Pooja Kabra, Adv. Mr. Amit Singh, Adv.
