Resistance or obstruction to lawful apprehension of another person

Related judgements & precedents

These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.

1. Shajahan@shaje@shahul Hameed@basha@thoka vs The State Rep. by the Additional Deputy Superintendent of Police and Chief Investigating Officer

   Supreme Court of India 01 Nov 2018 Persuasive - Other High Courts

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   Where evidence of harboring under Section 212 IPC depends on witness testimony that the escaped prisoner came to and resided at a specific location, and the owner of that location and other witnesses explicitly deny this allegation without contradiction from the prosecution, the harboring charge cannot be sustained even if conspiracy is otherwise proved, as the charge of harboring requires clear positive evidence of the specific act of harboring and cannot rest on mere presumption or conspiracy alone.

   On this section: Resistance or obstruction to lawful custody

   Read the full order on eCourts India

2. Udailal and Anr. vs State

   High Court 23 Mar 2018 Persuasive (Other High Court)

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   While the conviction of appellants for criminal conspiracy, attempted murder, and illegal firearms possession is legally sustainable and properly established by reliable evidence, the sentences imposed by the trial court can be reduced to the period already undergone by the appellants when the appellants have already served more than six years and three months of imprisonment out of the maximum ten-year sentence, provided that the appellants pay the fine amounts imposed as compensation to the injured victims. The principles of rehabilitation, proportionality in sentencing, and the substantial time already served in custody justify such reduction, thereby meeting the ends of justice.

   On this section: Resistance or obstruction by a person to his lawful apprehension - Applied to the resistance offered during the incident

   Read the full order on eCourts India

3. Bhawani Singh vs State of Rajasthan through P P.

   High Court 26 Nov 2013 Persuasive (Other High Court)

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   The ratio decidendi of this judgment is that: (1) Section 352 CrPC operates only when the same magistrate who witnessed the offence tries the case. If a different magistrate is holding charge at the time of trial, Section 352 does not apply. (2) A magistrate acting in official public capacity is not deemed personally interested under Section 479 CrPC, and the Explanation to Section 479 specifically clarifies this. (3) The title given to a document does not determine its legal nature. If allegations are made to a magistrate with a view to taking action, it constitutes a complaint under Section 2(d) CrPC regardless of the title. (4) A complaint filed under valid provisions of law (Section 180F of Indian Railways Act 1989) is not vitiated merely because the charge-sheet title incorrectly cites repealed provisions (Indian Railways Act 1890). (5) Section 195 CrPC bar does not apply to Section 224 IPC offence, hence defences available to co-accused under Section 195 are not available to accused charged under Section 224 IPC. (6) Prima facie evidence of commission of offence is sufficient to sustain cognizance and proceed with prosecution.

   On this section: Offence of resistance or obstruction by public servant. Cited in relation to Superintendent of Police's case.

   Read the full order on eCourts India

4. Dinesh vs State of Rajasthan through P P.

   High Court 26 Nov 2013 Persuasive (Other High Court)

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   When prima facie evidence of criminal offenses exists and the substance of allegations constitutes a valid complaint under law, procedural defects in the form or title of documents do not vitiate the cognizance or proceedings. The bar under Section 352 Criminal Procedure Code applies only when the same magistrate who witnessed the offense tries the case; if a different magistrate conducts the trial, the bar does not apply. A magistrate acting in his public capacity is not deemed personally interested under Section 479 Criminal Procedure Code merely by reason of being involved in a matter in that capacity. The availability of statutory protections under Section 195 and 340 Criminal Procedure Code depends on the specific offense charged, and these protections do not extend to offenses not enumerated in Section 195.

   On this section: Resistance or obstruction by public servant to lawful apprehension; cited against Superintendent of Police

   Read the full order on eCourts India

5. Kanchan @ Dharmendra vs State of Rajasthan through P P

   High Court 15 May 2017 Persuasive (Other HC)

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   A second anticipatory bail petition cannot be entertained and must be dismissed if there is no change in circumstances from the earlier dismissed petition, as the earlier dismissal on merits remains binding unless material new facts or changed circumstances are demonstrated.

   On this section: Resistance or obstruction by a person to lawful apprehension of another; charge against the petitioner

   Read the full order on eCourts India

The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.