Telangana High Court
Shaik Shabbir Shaik Ahmed And Another vs The State Of Telangana on 23 June, 2022
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5338 OF 2022
ORAL ORDER:
Heard Mr. Gajanand Chakravarthi, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State.
2. The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section - 482 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash the proceedings in Crime No.74 of 2022 of Boath Police Station, Adilabad District.
3. The petitioners herein are arraigned as accused Nos.1 and 2 in the aforesaid Crime. The offences alleged against them are under Sections -279, 353, 420, 270 and 273 read with 34 of IPC.
4. Perusal of the record would reveal that the lis involved in this case in relation to the offences under Sections - 279, 420, 270 and 273 of IPC had already been dealt with by this Court extensively in Mohd. Jameel Ahmed v. State of Telangana1. This Court in the said case relying on various decisions of the Supreme 1 . 2022 Cr.L.J. 642 KL,J Crl.P. No.5338 of 2022 2 Court, explained and interpreted the relevant provisions with which the petitioners herein were charged. Relying on the said judgment, this Court had also disposed of similar matters vide Common Order dated 10.06.2022 in Crl.P. No.5619 of 2020 and batch. Following the said judgments, the proceedings in the subject crime for the offences under Sections - 279, 420, 270 and 273 of IPC are liable to be quashed.
5. As far as the offence under Section - 353 of IPC is concerned, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would contend that there is specific allegation against the petitioners with regard to the offence under Section - 353 of IPC. Perusal of the complaint would reveal that while the crime vehicle was proceeding towards Adilabad from Beedhar driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and that when the police party stopped the said vehicle for checking, but he did not stop. Then, the police chased the said vehicle, then the driver of the crime vehicle stopped at Kangutta Bus Stop and two people have pushed the police party with hands and fleeing from the crime vehicle and used criminal force to public servants from discharge of their legitimate duties.
KL,J Crl.P. No.5338 of 2022 3 Thus, the police also registered the subject crime for the said offence.
6. Section - 353 of IPC deals with 'assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty'. In view of the same, it is apposite to extract the said provision which is as under:
"353. 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 in 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.
7. In this regard, relying on the decision rendered by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati in Jaganath Enterprises, Eluru v. State of A.P., through SHO, Pamur P.S., Prakasam District2, learned counsel for the petitioner herein would submit that the complaint lacks the ingredients of offence 2 . 2020 (1) ALT (Crl) 215 KL,J Crl.P. No.5338 of 2022 4 under Section -353 of IPC and, therefore, the proceedings for the said offence are also liable to be quashed.
8. In Durgacharan v. State of Orissa3, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that under Section - 353 of IPC, the ingredients of assault or use of criminal force while the public servant is doing his duty as such is necessary. It was also held that mere use of force, however, is not enough to bring an Act within the terms of Section 353 of IPC. It has further to be shown that force was used intentionally to any person without that person's consent in order to commit an offence or with the intention or with the knowledge that the use of force will cause injury, fear or annoyance to the person against whom the force is used.
9. In Manik Taneja and another vs. State of Karnataka4, the Apex Court held as under:
"A reading of the above provision shows that the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 353 IPC are that the person accused of the offence should have assaulted the public servant or used 3 . AIR 1966 SC 1775 4 . (2015) 7 SCC 423 KL,J Crl.P. No.5338 of 2022 5 criminal force with the intention to prevent or deter the public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant. By perusing the materials available on record, it appears that no force was used by the appellants to commit such an offence. There is absolutely nothing on record to show that the appellants either assaulted the respondents or used criminal force to prevent the second respondent from discharging his official duty. Taking the uncontroverted allegations, in our view, the ingredients of the offence under Section 353 IPC are not made out.?
11. In Jaganath Enterprises2, the learned Single Judge observed as under:
"Section 353 IPC is also pressed into service by the police in these cases. In the case on hand, the only issue that is raised is that the accused 'pushed' away the police officer while trying to escape. This by itself, in the opinion of this Court, would not amount to use of assault or criminal force against a public servant from discharging of his duties."
12. Thus, prima facie, the complaint lacks the ingredients of the offence under Section - 353 of IPC and, therefore, the proceedings for the said offence are also liable to be quashed.
KL,J Crl.P. No.5338 of 2022 6
13. Following the Common Order in Mohd. Jameel Ahmed (Supra) and the Common Order dated 10.06.2022 in Crl.P. No.5619 of 2020 and batch, the present Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in Crime No.74 of 2022 of Boath Police Station, Adilabad District, are hereby quashed against the petitioners - accused Nos.1 and 2.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the criminal petition shall stand closed.
____________________ rd 23 June, 2022 K. LAKSHMAN, J Note:
Annex a copy of the Common Order dated 05.07.2021 in Crl.P. No.152 of 2020 & batch and Common Order dated 10.06.2022 in Crl.P. No.5619 of 2020 and batch (B/O.) Mgr