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

SKS,J

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

SKS,J

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

SKS,J

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

SKS,J

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

SKS,J

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

AIR 1966 SC 1775

2015 7 SCC 423

SKS,J

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.?"