Kerala High Court
Muraleedharan vs State Of Kerala on 19 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 27TH ASWINA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 4108 OF 2020
TO QUASH ANNEXURE A2 FINAL REPORT AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN
CC 872/2018 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, OTTAPPALAM
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2:
1 MURALEEDHARAN AGED 50 YEARS S/O. KRISHNANKUTTY,
RARATHODY HOUSE, P. O. MANISSERI, OTTAPALAM TALUK, NOW
RESIDING AT NO.T1, VAVOO MATHOR APARTMENTS, ST. THOMAS
ROAD, SREENIVASAGAM NAGAR, MAHARAJANAGAR,
PALAYAMKOTTAI, THIRUNELVELI, TAMILNADU.
2 AIYSHA BEEVI W/O. MURALEEDHARAN, RARATHODY HOUSE, P.
O. MANISSERI, OTTAPALAM TALUK, NOW RESIDING AT NO.T1,
VAVOO MATHOR APARTMENTS, ST. THOMAS ROAD,
SREENIVASAGAM NAGAR, MAHARAJANAGAR, PALAYAMKOTTAI,
THIRUNELVELI, TAMILNADU.
BY ADV P.JAYARAM
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH
COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
SRI NOUSHAD K..A (SR PP)
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.4108 OF 2020
2
ORDER
Petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in
Crime No.509 of 2018 of Ottapalam Police Station
alleging commission of offences under Sections
294(b) and 53 r/w Section 34 of the IPC. The
allegation is that being aggrieved by the non
acceptance of basic tax in respect of certain land, the
petitioners verbally abused the Village Officer,
Vaniyamkulam-II Village, by using obscene words and
also obstructed the discharge of official duty by the
Village Officer and thereby they committed offences
alleged against them.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners would submit that the petitioners are
absolutely innocent in the matter. It is submitted that
even if all the allegations in the complaint of the
Village Officer are accepted to be true, no offence is
made out as against the petitioners. It is submitted
Crl.M.C.No.4108 OF 2020
that a reading of the FIS will show that the offence
under Section 294(b) of the IPC is not attracted. It is
submitted that in order to attract the offence under
Section 294(b), the complaint must indicate the exact
nature of obscene words used by the accused.
Reliance is placed in this regard on the judgments of
this Court in Preethimon v. State of Kerala [2008
(2) KLT 666] and James Jose v. State of Kerala
[2019 (3) KLT 415]. It is submitted that the offence
under Section 353 of the IPC is also not attracted in
the light of the law laid down by this Court in
Hariprasad v. State of Kerala [2017 (2) KLT SN 12
(C.No.16)].
3. The learned Public Prosecutor refers to the
contents of the FIS of the Village Officer as also to the
final report to contend that the question as to
whether the offences alleged against the petitioners
have been committed or not have to be determined in
trial and not in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Crl.M.C.No.4108 OF 2020
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the
petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor, I am of
the view that the petitioners are entitled to succeed.
A reading of the FIS forming part of Annexure A1 FIR
as also Annexure A2 final report will indicate that the
exact nature of the obscene words stated to have
been used by the petitioners is not mentioned either
in the FIS or in the final report. Therefore, going by
the law laid down by this Court in Preethimon
(Supra) and James Jose (Supra), an offence under
Section 294(b) of the IPC cannot be said to be
attracted. Coming to the offence under Section 353
of the IPC, the only allegation in FIS forming part of
Annexure A1 FIR and in the final report is that the
petitioners had pulled chairs and placed them in such
a manner that would obstruct the movement of the
Village Officer. This by itself is not an offence under
Section 353 of the IPC. In Hariprasad (Supra) it is
held as follows:
Crl.M.C.No.4108 OF 2020
"7. The question relevant for consideration in the
context is whether restraint of an official would
amount to an offence under Section 353 I.P.C. In
this connection, it is apposite to extract Section 353
I.P.C. hereunder, which reads:-
"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 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. Section 353 contemplates the pre-requirements as
follows for the offence to be attracted:-
i. Assault or criminal force must be there.
ii.The person against whom assault or criminal force
is alleged must be a public servant.
iii. The public servant was in the lawful execution of
his duty as a public servant.
iv. The assault or criminal force must be exercised
with intention to prevent or deter the public servant
from discharging his duty.
v. The use of criminal force must be intentional.
vi. The use of criminal force must be without the
Crl.M.C.No.4108 OF 2020
consent of the person.
vii. By the use of criminal force, motion, change of
motion or cessation of motion of the public servant
must have been caused.
viii. Use of criminal force must be with intention to
cause or with knowledge that the same is likely to
cause injury, fear or annoyance to the person to
whom it is used.
9. Therefore, it follows that the above mentioned
ingredients are to be established for an offence
under Section 353 to be attracted. An analysis of the
factual matrix is relevant in the context to see
whether the ingredients could be made out from the
allegations contained in the materials appended with
the application. There cannot be any doubt with
respect to the fact that the defacto complainant and
his fellowmen are public servants and they were
engaged at the relevant time in the lawful discharge
of their duty as such to address the situation likely
to create law and order problems. Obstruction
caused by the petitioners by parking the vehicle on
the road and unloading goods therefrom, if was not
restrained, there was every chance for the vehicular
traffic through the road to be disturbed and that
would lead to law and order problems. Therefore,
undoubtedly, the defacto complainant and his
fellowmen intervened to remove the obstruction. In
that event, the petitioners restrained the officials
from discharging their duties by exercising assault
Crl.M.C.No.4108 OF 2020
or exerting criminal force on them. It is not
disclosed from the allegation that the petitioners
made any gesture or any preparation intending or
knowing it to be likely that their deeds would create
an apprehension to the party to whom those were
made, that criminal force would be used against
them. It is also manifestly clear from the allegation
that the petitioners did not use any force on the
officials intentionally or knowing it to be likely that
such force would cause injury, fear or annoyance to
them."
Reading of the FIS and final report does not suggest
that any of the ingredients required to constitute
offence under Section 353 of the IPC has been
committed by the petitioners.
Therefore, this Crl.M.C. is allowed and all further
proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.872 of
2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court-Ottappalam will stand quashed.
Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
JUDGE
SSK/19/10
Crl.M.C.No.4108 OF 2020
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4108/2020
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT AND
A1 THE COMPLAINT IN CRIME NO.509/2018, OTTAPALAM
POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME
A2 NO.509/2018, OTTAPALAM POLICE STATION/CC
NO.872/2018 ON THE FILES OF JUDICIAL 1ST CLASS
MAGISTRATE, OTTAPALAM.
TRUE COPY
P.A. TO JUDGE
