Jahanvi Agarwal
On 1st July 2024, the Himachal Pradesh High Court clarified that merely protesting or using harsh language without any physical action does not constitute the criminal offense of obstructing a public servant. This decision came after a driver was charged under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for allegedly obstructing police officers during a traffic stop.
The incident occurred on August 24, 2019, when the petitioner, a driver, was signaled by the police to stop for not wearing a seat belt. Instead of stopping immediately, he parked his vehicle at a different location. During the subsequent interaction, he reportedly misbehaved with the police and later broadcasted the encounter live on Facebook, expressing his grievances about the treatment he received.
Justice Sandeep Sharma, presiding over the case, emphasized that passive actions alone do not amount to obstruction. The Court stated, “There is nothing on record to suggest that obstruction, if any, was ever caused by the petitioner while respondents No.2 was challaning him under Sections 177 and 179 of the Motor Vehicles Act, no proceeding, if any, under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code could have been initiated against him. Since, basic ingredients of Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code are missing, chances of conviction of the petitioner-accused in a trial, if permitted to continue, are very remote and bleak.”
Advocate Neeraj Sharma represented the petitioner, while Additional Advocate General Rajan Kahol appeared for the respondents. The Court observed that the act of going live on Facebook and making remarks could not be deemed obstruction. The Court further explained that there is no evidence to suggest that the petitioner prevented the Police from issuing a challan. Instead, the Police observed certain discrepancies and proceeded to challan him under Sections 177 and 179 of the Act.
Justice Sharma noted that making remarks on Facebook alone is not enough to establish that the petitioner caused any obstruction. “Making certain remarks, if any, on Facebook may not be sufficient to conclude obstruction, if any, caused by the petitioner,” the judgment stated. Upon reviewing the arguments, the High Court concluded that the allegations did not meet the criteria for a case under Section 186 of the IPC.
The Court noted the absence of any evidence indicating that the petitioner used physical force to prevent the police from issuing a challan. His Facebook remarks were interpreted as complaints about perceived harassment rather than attempts to impede the police from performing their duties.
Consequently, the High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, reinforcing the notion that passive behaviour and verbal protests without physical interference do not constitute obstruction of a public servant’s duties.
Case Name: Sita Ram Sharma v. State Of HP & Anr.
Dairy Number: 363/2023
Bench: Justice Sandeep Sharma