STATE OF H.P. Vs. PUSHPA SOOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State has challenged the acquittal of the Respondent under Sec. 186 of the Indian Penal Code allegedly causing obstruction in the official discharge of duty to Naib Tehsildar PW -1 Yoginder Sen.

(2.) In short, the prosecution case is that on 20th March, 2008 when PW -1 Naib Tehsildar Yoginder Sen present in the office, Respondent along with her husband came there and asked to attest the mutation. On this, he told the Respondent that first it has to be attested by the field Kanungo and thereafter he would do the needful within 10/15 minutes. On this, Respondent is alleged to have started misbehaving and hitting the table which caused obstruction in the official discharge of the duties. A complaint Ext.PW -1/A in writing was made by the Naib Tehsildar to the Deputy Commissioner, which was forwarded to the S.H.O. concerned. S.H.O. collected the record and recorded the statement of one Naresh Kumar and filed the complaint through ASI Ram Chand, Police Station, Dharampur, in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kasauli on 2nd April, 2008.

(3.) The learned trial Court wrongly took the cognizance on the basis of said complaint which is in contravention of the provisions of Sec. 195(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure because the learned trial Court could not have taken the cognizance of the complaint at the behest of the police, as it provides that it could only take cognizance on a complaint in writing by the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate.