UMASHANKAR YADAV & ANR. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY & ANR.

Citation: [2025] 5 S.C.R. 1306 · Decided: 08-05-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1306 : 2025 INSC 653
Umashankar Yadav & Anr. 
v. 
State of Uttar Pradesh,  
Through Chief Secretary & Anr.
(Criminal Appeal No. 439 of 2018)
08 May 2025
[Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the High Court erred by not quashing the prosecution 
against the accused under ss.186 and 353 of Indian Penal Code.
Headnotes†
Penal Code, 1860 – s.186 – Whether the Chargesheet discloses 
the ingredients of offence under s.186:
Held: A raid was conducted by the labour officers on the tip of 
social workers(appellants) to verify the allegation that bonded/child 
labour were employed at the brick kiln, the appellant accompanied 
the labour officers for the raid – During inspection, a difference of 
opinion cropped up between the labour officers and the appellants 
as to the manner in which the inspection was to be conducted – 
While the appellants wanted the workmen and children to be brought 
to the Police Station for interrogation, the members of the labour 
officers intended to record their statements at the site – The labour 
officials lodged an FIR against the appellant for obstruction of public 
function – Essential ingredients of offence under Section 186 are 
(i) Obstruction of a public servant in discharge of public functions; 
(ii) Such obstruction is done voluntarily and with the intention to prevent 
discharge of official duties – The issue cropped up due to difference 
of opinion between the appellant and labour officials, 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 
endeavours of the appellant were not to impede interrogation but to 
ensure it was conducted in a more effective manner, moreover, no 
force was used to take the labourers away as per their statements – 
The FIR was a product of malice and personal vendetta against 
the appellants – Thus, ingredients of offence under Section 186 is 
* Author
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 
1307
Umashankar Yadav & Anr. v.  
State of Uttar Pradesh, Through Chief Secretary & Anr.
not fulfilled, even assuming the ingredients under Section 186 are 
disclosed, prosecution under the said section simplicitor suffers from 
various insurmountable legal hurdles. [Paras 18, 30]
Penal Code, 1860 – s.353 – Whether the Chargesheet discloses 
the ingredients of offence under s.353:
Held: Essential ingredients of offence under Section 353 are (i) Use 
of assault or criminal force on a public servant during execution of 
his duty. (ii) With the intention-(a) to prevent or deter discharge of 
such duty; or (b) as a consequence of anything done or attempted 
to be done in the lawful discharge of his duty – Physical movement 
of the labourers would not amount to use of force far less criminal 
force on a public servant. [Paras 19, 24]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.155 and 195 – Whether 
the registration of FIR and subsequent cognizance taken, is 
bad in law:
Held: Section 186 is 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) Cr.P.C was 
necessary to register FIR, since no such permission was obtained 
rendering the registration of FIR and ensuing investigation bad in 
law – Moreover, cognizance of offence under Section 186 IPC 
was taken on a police report, Section 195, inter alia, provides 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 – Since the cognizance taken of the offence under 
section 186 on a police report/chargesheet thus it is bad in law. 
[Paras 31,32]
Case Law Cited
Ashok Chaturvedi & Ors. v. Shitul H. Chanchani & Anr. (1998) 7 
SCC 698 – referred to.
State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others [1990] 
Supp. 3 SCR  259 : (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335; B.N. John v. State 
of U.P. & Anr., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 7 – relied upon.
List of Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal Code, 1860.
1308
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
List of Keywords
Obstruction of public servant; Use of criminal force against public 
servant; Ingredients necessary for offence; Malicious animus; 
Personal vendetta.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
439 of 2018
From the Judgment and Order dated 02.07.201
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.