Making Certain Remarks About Police Action On Facebook Not Sufficient To Attract Offence U/S 186 IPC Of Obstruction Of Public Duty: Himachal Pradesh HC

Petitioner, a driver who had broadcasted live on Facebook while encountering police during a traffic stop where he was asked to present vehicle-related documents. He was charged under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for obstructing a public servant.

Detailing the incident, it was stated that on August 24, 2019, police signaled petitioner to stop his vehicle for not wearing a seat belt. Allegedly, he did not immediately stop but parked his vehicle at another location. When questioned by the police, he reportedly misbehaved and later went live on Facebook to protest against what he perceived as unjust treatment.

A Bench of Justice Sandeep Sharma emphasized that passive conduct alone does not amount to obstruction. The Court said, “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 appeared for the Petitioner and Additional Advocate General Rajan Kahol appeared for the Respondents.

The Court noted that in this case, the petitioner's act of going live on Facebook and making comments could not be considered as obstruction. The Court added, “there is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner stopped Police from challaning him, rather police, after having noticed certain discrepancies, challaned him under Sections 177 and 179 of the Act. Making certain remarks, if any, on Facebook may not be sufficient to conclude obstruction, if any, caused by the petitioner”

Upon examining the arguments, the High Court concluded that the allegations did not substantiate a case under Section 186 of the IPC against him. It noted that there was no evidence that he used physical force to obstruct the police from issuing him a challan (fine).

The Court highlighted that his remarks on Facebook were more in the nature of complaining about perceived harassment rather than intending to dissuade police from their duties.

As a result, the High Court quashed the criminal proceedings.

Cause Title: Sita Ram Sharma v. State Of HP & Anr.

Appearance:

Respondents: Additional Advocate Generals Rajan Kahol and BC Verma, along with Deputy Advocate General Ravi Chauhan.