Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Case Against NGO Workers, Slams 'Malicious' Prosecution
The Supreme Court on May 8, 2025 observed that summoning of an accused is a serious matter which affects liberty and dignity of the individual concerned and judicial intervention under Section 482 CrPC to weed out vexatious proceedings is of pivotal importance in order to protect individuals from untelling harassment and misery and to ensure that unmerited prosecutions do not crowd overflowing dockets of criminal courts and yield space for deserving cases.
A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi pointed out, faced with the agony of a lame prosecution, it is of little solace to a litigant to be told that inherent powers are shut out as he is entitled to approach the trial court and pray for discharge.
"The inherent power of the High Court to prevent abuse of process of court is much wider in amplitude than the discharge powers and cannot be whittled down on the plea of existence of such remedy," the court stressed.
The court quashed the prosecution of appellant Umashankar Yadav and another, members of NGO 'Guria' for offences under Sections 186 and 353 of Indian Penal Code, accusing them of forcibly taking away child labourers rescued from a brick kiln in Varanasi in a joint operation with the police and labour department.
The bench found malicious animus and legal irregularities in prosecution of the appellants.
Dealing with the Allahabad High Court's order refusing to quash the FIR lodged with Lohta police station in Varanasi, the court noted, Guria is a well known and reputed organisation fighting against human trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation of girls/children in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Due to its relentless efforts a number of minor girls have been rescued from the clutches of traffickers.
While the pioneering efforts of the organization received accolades at national and international levels, its foot soldiers i.e. the appellants have suffered the ignominy of being branded as “criminals” for alleged overzealousness in course of a raid to rescue bonded labour/minor children from a brick kiln at Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, the bench said.
Court noted the unfortunate saga commenced when the first appellant, a Project Coordinator at Guria, submitted an application in 2014 before the District Magistrate, Varanasi, alleging bonded/child labourers were engaged in a brick kiln at Varanasi and sought an action to rescue the exploited labourers including children. In response to the application, Deputy District Magistrate, Varanasi ordered the Assistant Labour Commissioner to take necessary action.
Appellants contended they found children and labourers at the brick kiln who were brought to the Police Station. At that time the owner of the brick kiln intervened and took away the labourers. First appellant submitted a faxed message disclosing these facts to the District Magistrate.
On the other hand, the informant lodged a complaint at Lohta Police Station that though no child was found working at the spot, alleging that when his team had reached Shakti Mark Brick Kiln, appellants, along with others, forcibly put the labourers and the children in dumpers and took them away. Appellants did not obey the instructions of the joint team and did not let them record their statements before taking away the labourers. Thereby they obstructed and hampered their discharge of official duty.
Examining the appeal, the bench found that the High Court did not advert either to the facts of the case or the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants.
"In a perfunctory manner, it observed the issues involved disputed questions of fact which could not be adjudicated before the court under Section 482 CrPC. It also observed the appellants have a right to seek discharge before the trial court," the bench said.
The court emphasised that prior to arriving at such finding, it is the duty of the High Court to ascertain whether the uncontroverted allegations in the FIR/ charge sheet constitute an offence, or continuation of the proceeding suffers from a legal bar or is wholly vexatious and an abuse of process of law.
Scanning the allegations in the charge sheet and statements of witnesses, the court said, the appellants who had accompanied a team of Labour Enforcement Officers at the brick kiln, took away the workmen and children while labour officers intended to record their statements at the site before taking further action.
The court, however, found statements of labourers unequivocally showed that no force was used to take them away and they were promptly released. These statements do not give an impression that such action was with the intention to impede discharge of official duty, court held.
"It appears there was a genuine difference of opinion between the appellants and the officials concerned. Members of the social organization were of the impression that bonded labourers/children ought to be interrogated at a neutral place i.e. Police Station whereas the officers wanted to interrogate them at the site," the bench said.
Finding absence of requisite mens rea to obstruct official duty, the bench said, "When profile of the allegations emerging from the factual matrix of the case renders existence of mens rea patently absurd or inherently improbable, such prosecution is liable to be quashed as an abuse of process of law".
Court also found malicious animus of the labour officials as the Additional Commissioner had gone to the extent of alleging the appellants had offered bribes to the labourers to make false statements.
"Such insinuations are wholly unfounded and not borne out from the statements recorded during investigation. This hostile stance of the department fortifies our conclusion that registration of the criminal case was a product of malice and personal vendetta against the appellants," the bench said.
Court also noted the prosecution under Section I86 IPC simplicitor suffered from various insurmountable legal hurdles, firstly, Section 186 was a non-cognizable offence and in absence of ingredients of Section 353 (cognizable offence) disclosed in the FIR, prior permission of Magistrate under Section 155 (2) CrPC was necessary to register FIR and no such permission was obtained rendering the registration of FIR and ensuing investigation bad in law.
Secondly, the bench pointed out cognizance of offence under Section 186 IPC was taken on a police report in breach of Section 195 CrPC. Section 195, inter alia, provides that no court shall take cognizance of offence under Section 186 save and except on a complaint in writing by the aggrieved public servant or his superior. In view of the legal bar, cognizance taken of the offence under Section 186 on a police report/charge sheet was impermissible in law, it said.
Though a police report disclosing a non-cognizable offence (Section 186 in the present case) could be deemed to be a complaint and the police officer, the complainant, the bench said, even then, the legal embargo under section 195 CrPC was not dispelled as the legal fiction deems the police officer and not the aggrieved public servant as the complainant.
Case Title: Umashankar Yadav & Anr Vs State of Uttar Pradesh, Through Chief Secretary & Anr
Download judgment here