Telangana High Court
C. Srikar, vs The State Of Telangana, on 15 April, 2025
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.15569 OF 2024
O R D E R:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short 'BNSS') by petitioner/accused to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.989 of 2024 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Jadcherla, Mahabubnagar District.
2. Heard Mr. K.L.N.Raghavendra Reddy, learned counsel representing Mr. Palle Srinivasa Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Surepalli Prashanth, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent - State. Perused the material on record.
3. On the basis of complaint of respondent No.2 on 27.09.2022, FIR bearing No.597/2022 was registered at Jadcherla P.S. Charge sheet was filed against accused on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at 2 JAK, J CRLP_15569_2024 Jadcherla, Mahabubnagar District, on 02.09.2024 under Section 353 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC').
4. It is alleged in the complaint that a person by name Naresh was called to Police Station for enquiry on 27.09.2022 at 09:00 p.m. That when Naresh came to the Police Station for investigation/enquiry at 09:00 p.m., another person walked into Police Station and abused the police personnel present in the Police Station i.e., D.Ramesh, Head Constable No.228 and B.Narsimhulu, Police Constable No.1233 of Jadcherla Police Station. It is further averred in the complaint that petitioner was the person who barged into Police Station and abused the personnel in filthy language, picked up a quarrel and pushed B.Naraminhulu, Police Constable. Hence, the charge under Section 353 of IPC.
5. Investigating Officer recorded the statements of D.Ramesh, Head Constable and B.Narsimhulu, Police Constable. On a perusal of the complaint, statements recorded and contents of the charge sheet, it is apparent that all the contents are similar in nature. 3
JAK, J CRLP_15569_2024
6. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that it is a false case filed against petitioner to implicate him and that there is no iota of truth in the complaint lodged and the contents of complaint are baseless. Learned counsel for petitioner also submitted that contents of FIR and charge sheet are same and that charge sheet simply reproduced the contents of the complaint and that there is nothing new after the investigation. Learned counsel for petitioner relied on the judgment of Apex Court in Kailashben Mahendrabhai Patel v. State of Maharashtra 1.
7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent- State submitted that petitioner abused personnel in the Police Station and used physical force by pushing the Police Constable and hence, Section 353 of IPC is attracted. It is also submitted that interference is not necessitated and proceedings in C.C.No.989 of 2024 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Jadcherla, Mahabubnagar District, be allowed to go on. 1 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2621 4 JAK, J CRLP_15569_2024
8. Heard learned counsels, perused the record and considered the rival submissions.
9. FIR bearing No.597/2022 was registered on 27.09.2022 at Jadcherla P.S on the basis of complaint of respondent No.2. In the complaint dated 27.09.2022, it is stated that one person by name Naresh was called for investigation and that he was accompanied by the accused. That the person who accompanied asked the Police personnel as to why his father was called to the Police Station and pushed aside the complainant and abused in filthy language. Nothing more is forthcoming in the complaint. The similar statements are reflected in the statements recorded before the Police. Police recorded the statement of one D.Ramesh, a Head Constable bearing No.228 of Jadcherla Police Station and statement of B.Narasimhulu, Police Constable bearing batch No.1233. In the charge sheet, it is reflected that the accused along with his family members came to the Police Station and picked up a quarrel, abused in filthy language and pushed aside and thus, interfered in the legitimate duties. In the 5 JAK, J CRLP_15569_2024 charge sheet, Section 353 of IPC is reflected and that the accused is said to have committed the offence falling under the purview of Section 353 of IPC.
10. The contents of the complaint, when examined with the statements of D.Ramesh, Head Constable and B.Narasimhulu, Police Constable, recorded by Sub- Inspector, are exact reproduction of complaint. This Court has perused the contents of charge sheet. The contents of the charge sheet also reflect the same and nothing new is spelled out, after investigation. The allegations made in the complaint/FIR are same as in the charge sheet.
11. Section 353 of IPC is as follows:
"Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty:- Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person to the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
12. For an act to come within the scope of the offence under Section 353 of IPC, such an act must qualify as an 6 JAK, J CRLP_15569_2024 assault or use of criminal force meant to deter a public servant from discharging of duties. Pushing aside the Police personnel cannot be termed of an act of assault or use of criminal force.
13. An examination of Section 353 of IPC indicates that to invoke the offence under Section 353 of IPC, there must be use of criminal force or assault on any public servant in the execution of his official duty or with the intent to prevent or deter such public servant from discharging his duties. For the offence under Section 353 of IPC, it is not only obstruction, but the intention and the actual use of criminal force or assault on the public servant is necessary. On the perusal of the entire contents of the record i.e., FIR, statements recorded, charge sheet, there is no ingredient which fulfills the requirements under Section 353 of IPC. The use of criminal force or assault with intent to obstruct the official duty is not made out as required. The grievance primarily appears to be that accused used filthy language and pushed aside the officer i.e., complainant.
7
JAK, J CRLP_15569_2024
14. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that the ingredients of Section 353 of IPC have not been made out.
15. It is settled principle of law that under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the High Court has the power to prevent abuse of process of law or miscarriage of justice, either at the stage of FIR or charge sheet.
16. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court does not find any merit in the submissions made by learned counsel respondent-State.
17. This Court deems it appropriate that continuance of proceedings in C.C.No.989 of 2024 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Jadcherla, Mahabubnagar District, would be an abuse of process of law, as the ingredients of Section 353 have not been made out in the given facts and circumstances of the case.
18. On consideration of entire factual matrix of the case, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case to quash the 8 JAK, J CRLP_15569_2024 proceedings in C.C.No.989 of 2024 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Jadcherla, Mahabubnagar District and are accordingly quashed.
19. With the above observations, this Criminal Petition is allowed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________ ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J Date: 15.04.2025 PLP