Does live-streaming police action amount to obstruction of duty? Himachal Pradesh High Court answers

The Himachal Pradesh High Court recently held that a mere protest or use of intemperate language, without any overt act, would not amount to the criminal offence of obstructing an official in the discharge of public functions [Sita Ram Sharma vs State Of HP & Anr]..Justice Sandeep Sharma made the observation while dealing with the case of a driver who had gone live on Facebook and made certain remarks when the police, during traffic duty, asked him to show vehicle-related documents.The driver had been booked under Section 186 (obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). He then moved the High Court challenging the proceedings initiated before a magistrate in Shimla..The High Court opined that mere passive conduct by a person would not amount to obstruction. Rather, only an action accompanied by either a show of force or threat or having the effect of obstructing the public servant from carrying out his duty would constitute ‘obstruction’ under Section 186 of the IPC, the Court held.“Precise allegation in the case at hand against the petitioner is that he went live on Facebook and made certain comments, but certainly, such act, if any, of him, cannot be considered obstruction, if any, caused by the petitioner,” it added..By way of background, on August 24, 2019, the police had asked the petitioner, Sita Ram Sharma to stop his vehicle after allegedly finding that he was not wearing a seat belt. However, the petitioner allegedly did not stop the vehicle. The police later found his vehicle parked at another spot and asked him why he did not stop.According to the police, the petitioner misbehaved with them and also went live on Facebook to accuse that his parked vehicle was being challaned for no reason. .Challenging the criminal proceedings against him, the petitioner argued that he had not misbehaved or obstructed the police from doing their duty. However, the State contended that the very act of making the video amounted to obstruction.The Court, while analysing the submissions, concluded that no case under Section 186 of the IPC was made out against the petitioner. Once there is no allegation that the accused had used physical force to cause any obstruction to the police official, no case under Section 186 of IPC could have been initiated, the Court ruled.“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,” the Court said..The Court further observed that even otherwise, the remarks allegedly made by the petitioner on Facebook nowhere indicated that there was an attempt to dissuade the police officials from doing their duty.“Rather, by making post, petitioner attempted to state that he is being unnecessarily harassed,” the Court said.Consequently, the Court quashed the proceedings against the petitioner..Advocate Neeraj Sharma represented the petitioner.Additional Advocate Generals Rajan Kahol and BC Verma with Deputy Advocate General Ravi Chauhan represented the State..[Read Judgment]