1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR S.B. Crl. Miscellaneous Petition No.219/2010 (Ram Babu Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) Date of Order : 25.03.2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Mr.Mahesh Gupta, for the petitioners. Mr.Laxman Meena, PP. By the Court: By this petition, a challenge has been made to the order of cognizance so as the complaint. It is stated that cognizance for the offence under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “the IPC”) has been taken though the complaint submitted by the police does not show that a case is made out for commissioning of offence under Section 186 of IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is a case of peaceful agitation by few people regarding non-supply of electricity. On investigation, it was found that demonstration was quite peaceful and no obstruction was created. Despite report to that effect, a complaint has been filed for offence under Section 186 of IPC and accordingly, the order of cognizance has been passed. A reference to Annexure 2 has been given where police itself has recorded that there was no obstruction and otherwise, the officers of the electricity department were not even present at 2 the time when the petitioners reached to place. Looking to the aforesaid, the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioners is to quash and set aside the order dated 08.12.2009 so as the complaint. Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand opposed this petition and submits that in the complaint submitted by the police, it has come out that from 9.30 AM to 6.00 PM, the petitioners were agitating for non-supply of electricity and made demonstration. Looking to the aforesaid, it was taken to be a case under Section 186 of IPC. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and scanned matter carefully. Perusal of Annexure 2 shows that on investigation, it has come out that demonstration was peaceful and it was in regard to non-supply of electricity. No incidents took place at the time of initiation of demonstration and otherwise, initially no officer was present on the place of occurrence. The Annexure 2 further shows that no quarrel, obstruction or even abuse took place. Looking to the aforesaid, it is necessary to look into as to whether offence under Section 186 of IPC is made out. It would be gainful to quote Section 186 of IPC here. Section 186 of IPC is quoted hereunder for ready reference:- “Section 186. Obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions.-- 3 Whoever voluntarily obstructs any public servant in the discharge of his public functions, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both. Perusal of the provision shows that to make out a case under Section 186 of IPC, there should be a ailment of obstruction of the public servant in discharge of public functions. It has not come out in this case that there was obstruction of public servant accordingly, the cognizance order so passed deserves to be set aside so as the complaint. In view of the aforesaid, I am inclined to accept this petition and accordingly, same is accepted. The order dated 08.12.2009 is quashed and set aside and consequently, the criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioners is directed to be dropped. The miscellaneous petition is allowed accordingly. (M.N. BHANDARI),J. Preety Item NO.S-9