Shaik Arbaz vs The State Of Telangana
2022 Latest Caselaw 3025 Tel

               HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

                      CRIMINAL PETITION No.5335 OF 2022

ORAL ORDER:

            Heard Mr. Gajanand Chakravarthi, learned counsel for the

 petitioner 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.170 of 2022 of Adilabad I Town Police

Station, Adilabad District.

3. The petitioner herein is arraigned as sole accused in the

aforesaid Crime. The offences alleged against him are under

Sections - 353, 270 and 273 of IPC.

4. Perusal of the record would reveal that the lis involved in

this case in relation to the offences under Sections - 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 by relying on various decisions of the Supreme Court

. 2022 Cr.L.J. 642 KL,J Crl.P. No.5335 of 2022

explained and interpreted the relevant provisions with which the

petitioners herein were charged. Following the said judgment, this

Court 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 - 270 and 273 of IPC are liable to be

quashed.

5. As far as the offence under Section - 353 of IPC is

concerned, the contents of the complaint would reveal that when

the police party apprehended the petitioner red handedly and while

apprehending, the petitioner pushed the police party and obstructed

his legitimate duties. 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 KL,J Crl.P. No.5335 of 2022

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 Vasadhi Tripati Rao 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 under Section -353 of IPC and, therefore, the

proceedings for the said offence are also liable to be quashed.

8. In Jaganath Enterprises, Eluru2, 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

. 2020 (1) ALT (Crl) 215 KL,J Crl.P. No.5335 of 2022

assault or criminal force against a public servant from discharging of his duties."

9. In view of the above, the complaint in the present case

also lacks the ingredients of offence under Section - 353 of IPC

and, therefore, the proceedings for the said offence are also liable

to be quashed.

10. 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.170 of 2022 of Adilabad

I Town Police Station, Adilabad District, are hereby quashed

against the petitioner - accused.

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