As per case facts, the appellants, working for an anti-human trafficking NGO, were charged with obstruction and assault of a public servant (Sections 186/353 IPC) following a raid on a ... brick kiln where they allegedly took rescued laborers before officials could record statements. The High Court refused to quash the charge sheet, leading to the appeal. The question arose whether the uncontroverted allegations disclosed the ingredients of offenses under Sections 186 and 353 IPC, or if the proceeding was an abuse of process. Finally, the Supreme Court held that the allegations did not disclose the ingredients of Section 353 IPC, as there was no 'criminal force' or 'assault'. For Section 186 IPC, the lack of requisite criminal intention (mens rea) due to a genuine difference of opinion, combined with procedural flaws (no prior magisterial permission for the non-cognizable offense and cognizance taken on a police report violating Section 195 Cr.P.C.), rendered the entire prosecution an abuse of the process of law, quashing the case.