Sections that punish obstruction of public servants are meant to protect officials discharging public functions — not to convert every moment of human reluctance into a criminal case. On 12 August 2026, in Ashwini Anantrao Deshpande v. State of Maharashtra, arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 8692 of 2026, a Bench of Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Arun Palli quashed FIR No. 0131 of 2021 and the chargesheet against a government employee who had initially resisted her own medical examination while in an intoxicated state, holding that her conduct was not covered by the phrase "voluntarily obstructs any public servant" in Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code.
The facts
The appellant, a clerk in a government forest office in Maharashtra, was found in an intoxicated state and causing a disturbance on 4 May 2021. The police took her to a hospital for a medical examination. The prosecution's own case was that she initially resisted the procedure — including the drawing of blood — but ultimately complied and underwent the examination. An FIR followed, alleging offences under Sections 186 and 189 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 110, 112 and 117 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, and in due course a chargesheet was filed.
The holding
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the FIR and chargesheet in their entirety. The reasoning proceeds directly from the statutory text.
Section 186 IPC
The section punishes one who "voluntarily obstructs any public servant in the discharge of his public functions". The Court held that initial resistance to a medical examination of one's own person, followed by submission to it, "will not be covered in the phrase 'voluntarily obstructs any public servants'". The provision targets interference with the official's duty, not reluctance about a procedure on one's own body.
Section 189 IPC
The offence of holding out a threat of injury to a public servant requires precisely that — a threat made to deter the public servant from duty. The prosecution record disclosed no such threat, and the section was held not attracted.
Maharashtra Police Act
The provisions invoked, dealing with disorderly conduct and related misconduct, were equally found unsubstantiated on the prosecution's own narrative. With no offence surviving, the proceedings could not continue.
The principle beneath the decision
The judgment applies a discipline that criminal courts state often but enforce unevenly: penal statutes are construed strictly, and prosecutions must be tested against the ingredients of the offence rather than the general flavour of the incident. A person behaving erratically in public may face consequences under provisions actually addressed to that conduct. What the State cannot do is stretch an obstruction offence — designed to protect officials from interference — to cover a citizen's momentary resistance to an examination of her own body, particularly when she then submits to it.
Under the new criminal codes, the same analysis will govern: Section 186 IPC corresponds to Section 221 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 189 IPC to Section 224 BNS, in materially similar language. The judgment therefore remains a working precedent for FIRs registered after 1 July 2024.
Questions to ask when an obstruction FIR lands:
- What public function was the officer discharging, and how exactly was it obstructed?
- Does the FIR describe acts directed at the official — or merely the accused's own conduct?
- Was there a threat of injury, or only protest and reluctance?
- Did the person ultimately comply? Momentary resistance followed by compliance undercuts the charge.
- Is the state police statute invoked actually made out, or added as filler?
Takeaway
Obstruction and threat offences are lesser charges that often ride along with more serious allegations, and are sometimes the only charges left standing when the main case collapses. Deshpande confirms that they cannot survive on vague narratives. Where the prosecution's own case does not disclose the ingredients, the remedy of quashing — before the High Court under Section 528 BNSS, and thereafter the Supreme Court — remains fully available.
This article discusses a reported judgment for general information. Whether a particular FIR is amenable to quashing depends on its specific allegations and the stage of the proceedings.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does Section 186 IPC punish?
Section 186 IPC — corresponding to Section 221 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — punishes voluntarily obstructing a public servant in the discharge of public functions. The obstruction must be directed at the public servant's performance of duty. In Deshpande, the Supreme Court held that a person's initial resistance to a medical procedure on her own body, followed by compliance, does not meet that description.
Was the medical examination itself unlawful?
The Court did not need to go that far. The prosecution case itself showed that the appellant, taken to hospital after being found in an intoxicated state, at first resisted the examination and blood collection but ultimately underwent both. On those facts, none of the alleged offences — Sections 186 and 189 IPC and the provisions of the Maharashtra Police Act invoked — was made out.
What is the test for quashing an FIR on such grounds?
Where the allegations in the FIR and chargesheet, taken at their highest, do not disclose the ingredients of the offence alleged, the proceedings can be quashed. That is the category into which this case fell: even accepting the prosecution version in full, the conduct described was not an offence under the sections invoked.
Which court should be approached for quashing in Delhi?
A petition for quashing an FIR or chargesheet in a Delhi case is ordinarily filed before the High Court of Delhi under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which corresponds to Section 482 CrPC. After the case reaches the High Court and fails, the Supreme Court can be approached by special leave, as happened here.