Telangana High Court
Nerella Nithish vs The State Of Telangana on 4 November, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.11394 of 2024
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in CC.No.666 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Vemulavada, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 290, 353 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC').
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2/de facto complainant lodged a complaint stating that on 10.09.2022 he was posted to Ganesh Emersion Bandobasth duty near Baddi Pochamma Street at old Vishal Shopping Mall Complex where petitioner along with some other persons who are Members of Manikanta Youth Association kept the Ganesh Idol Tractor on the road for long time which obstructed the way of general public and that the DJ volume was also too high causing nuisance in public place and that when he asked them to keep the tractor aside and immerse 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.11394 of 2024 the idol at the earliest, they abused him and also attempted to attack him. It was further stated that one person by name Sai had recorded a video in his mobile phone and instigated respondent No.2 stating that he is a press journalist. On receipt of the said complaint, the Police registered case against the petitioner and filed charge sheet arraying him as accused No.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 290, 353 and 506 read with 34 of IPC. Aggrieved thereby, this criminal petition is filed.
3. Heard Sri B.Vivek, learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondents.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the allegations leveled against the petitioner are vague and baseless and that the ingredients in the charge sheet do not constitute any offence. He contended that the petitioner is an active member of Manikanta Youth Association and merely on that ground initiating criminal proceedings against the petitioner amounts to abuse of process of law. He asserted that though it is averred in the charge sheet averments that 3 SKS,J Crl.P.No.11394 of 2024 nuisance was created and general public were obstructed by keeping the tractor on the way, it would become apt to note that requisite permissions and approvals were obtained by the petitioner and his team from the Police Department for peaceful procession of immersion rally and a separate route was also assigned to the public at large so as to not cause any inconvenience to them. He lamented that there are no specific set of allegations against the petitioner stating that he caused any motion, change of motion or cessation of motion with use of bodily power to respondent NO.2 which are the basic ingredients to constitute offence under Section 353 of IPC. In support of this contention, he relied on the judgment rendered by this Court in Shaik Shabbir Shaik Ahmed and Another Vs. State of Telangana 1. Therefore, prayed this Court to allow the criminal petition, quashing the proceedings initiated against the petitioner.
5. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondents, opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the allegations leveled against the petitioner are with regard to 1 Crl.P.No.5338 of 2022 4 SKS,J Crl.P.No.11394 of 2024 causing nuisance and trouble to the public at large and also attempting to attack and abuse respondent No.2 who was posted for discharge of his official duty of bandobast and that the said allegations are serious in nature which requires trial. Therefore, at this stage, quashing of proceedings against the petitioners does not arise. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.
6. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on going through the material placed on record, it is to be noted that according to respondent No.2, the petitioner along with other persons are members of Manikanta Youth Association who had abused him; attempted to attack him and created nuisance, causing inconvenience to general public, whereas, it is the specific stand of petitioner that there are no ingredients in the averments to constitute the offence as alleged and that the respondent No.2 had implicated petitioner in false case.
7. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 341, 290, 353 and 506 read with 34 of IPC. Primarily, learned counsel for petitioner contended that there 5 SKS,J Crl.P.No.11394 of 2024 arises no scope to attract Section 353 of IPC against the petitioner. 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."
8. On meticulous perusal of the complaint averments, it is seen that the same would lack the necessary ingredients under Section 353 of IPC. In the judgment rendered by the 6 SKS,J Crl.P.No.11394 of 2024 Hon'ble Supreme Court in Durgacharan Vs. State of Orissa 2 it was held that 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 Karnataka 3 the Hon'ble Supreme 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 criminal force with the intention to prevent or deter the public servant from discharging his duty as such public 2 AIR 1966 SC 1775 3 2015 7 SCC 423 7 SKS,J Crl.P.No.11394 of 2024 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.?"
10. Further, it is imperative to note that 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.
11. Reverting to the case on hand, this Court is of the firm and considered view that prima facie the complaint lacks the ingredients of the offence under Section - 353 of IPC and, 8 SKS,J Crl.P.No.11394 of 2024 therefore, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section 353 of IPC are liable to be quashed. As a consequence, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Sections 341, 290 and 506 read with 34 of IPC are also not maintainable as except stating that the petitioner is was an active member of the Manikanta Youth Association who had allegedly created nuisance at the time of immersion of Ganesh Idol, there are no other specific set of allegations against him. Hence, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner is nothing but abuse of process of law.
12. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings initiated against the petitioner in CC.No.666 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Vemulavada, are hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
_____________ K.SUJANA, J Date:04.11.2024 PT