Telangana High Court
C. Srikar, vs The State Of Telangana, on 15 April, 2025
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.15569 OF 2024
O R D E R:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short 'BNSS')
by petitioner/accused to quash the proceedings against
him in C.C.No.989 of 2024 on the file of Additional Judicial
Magistrate of First Class at Jadcherla, Mahabubnagar
District.
2. Heard Mr. K.L.N.Raghavendra Reddy, learned counsel
representing Mr. Palle Srinivasa Reddy, learned counsel for
petitioner and Mr. Surepalli Prashanth, learned Assistant
Public Prosecutor for the respondent - State. Perused the
material on record.
3. On the basis of complaint of respondent No.2 on
27.09.2022, FIR bearing No.597/2022 was registered at
Jadcherla P.S. Charge sheet was filed against accused on
the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at
JAK, J
CRLP_15569_2024
Jadcherla, Mahabubnagar District, on 02.09.2024 under
Section 353 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC').
4. It is alleged in the complaint that a person by name
Naresh was called to Police Station for enquiry on
27.09.2022 at 09:00 p.m. That when Naresh came to the
Police Station for investigation/enquiry at 09:00 p.m.,
another person walked into Police Station and abused the
police personnel present in the Police Station i.e.,
D.Ramesh, Head Constable No.228 and B.Narsimhulu,
Police Constable No.1233 of Jadcherla Police Station. It is
further averred in the complaint that petitioner was the
person who barged into Police Station and abused the
personnel in filthy language, picked up a quarrel and
pushed B.Naraminhulu, Police Constable. Hence, the
charge under Section 353 of IPC.
5. Investigating Officer recorded the statements of
D.Ramesh, Head Constable and B.Narsimhulu, Police
Constable. On a perusal of the complaint, statements
recorded and contents of the charge sheet, it is apparent
that all the contents are similar in nature.
JAK, J
CRLP_15569_2024
6. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that it is a
false case filed against petitioner to implicate him and that
there is no iota of truth in the complaint lodged and the
contents of complaint are baseless. Learned counsel for
petitioner also submitted that contents of FIR and charge
sheet are same and that charge sheet simply reproduced
the contents of the complaint and that there is nothing new
after the investigation. Learned counsel for petitioner relied
on the judgment of Apex Court in Kailashben
Mahendrabhai Patel v. State of Maharashtra 1.
7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State submitted that petitioner abused personnel in the
Police Station and used physical force by pushing the
Police Constable and hence, Section 353 of IPC is attracted.
It is also submitted that interference is not necessitated
and proceedings in C.C.No.989 of 2024 on the file of
Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Jadcherla,
Mahabubnagar District, be allowed to go on.
2024 SCC OnLine SC 2621
JAK, J
CRLP_15569_2024
8. Heard learned counsels, perused the record and
considered the rival submissions.
9. FIR bearing No.597/2022 was registered on
27.09.2022 at Jadcherla P.S on the basis of complaint of
respondent No.2. In the complaint dated 27.09.2022, it is
stated that one person by name Naresh was called for
investigation and that he was accompanied by the accused.
That the person who accompanied asked the Police
personnel as to why his father was called to the Police
Station and pushed aside the complainant and abused in
filthy language. Nothing more is forthcoming in the
complaint. The similar statements are reflected in the
statements recorded before the Police. Police recorded the
statement of one D.Ramesh, a Head Constable bearing
No.228 of Jadcherla Police Station and statement of
B.Narasimhulu, Police Constable bearing batch No.1233.
In the charge sheet, it is reflected that the accused along
with his family members came to the Police Station and
picked up a quarrel, abused in filthy language and pushed
aside and thus, interfered in the legitimate duties. In the
JAK, J
CRLP_15569_2024
charge sheet, Section 353 of IPC is reflected and that the
accused is said to have committed the offence falling under
the purview of Section 353 of IPC.
10. The contents of the complaint, when examined with
the statements of D.Ramesh, Head Constable and
B.Narasimhulu, Police Constable, recorded by Sub-
Inspector, are exact reproduction of complaint. This Court
has perused the contents of charge sheet. The contents of
the charge sheet also reflect the same and nothing new is
spelled out, after investigation. The allegations made in the
complaint/FIR are same as in the charge sheet.
11. Section 353 of IPC is as follows:
"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 to 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.
12. For an act to come within the scope of the offence
under Section 353 of IPC, such an act must qualify as an
JAK, J
CRLP_15569_2024
assault or use of criminal force meant to deter a public
servant from discharging of duties. Pushing aside the
Police personnel cannot be termed of an act of assault or
use of criminal force.
13. An examination of Section 353 of IPC indicates that
to invoke the offence under Section 353 of IPC, there must
be use of criminal force or assault on any public servant in
the execution of his official duty or with the intent to
prevent or deter such public servant from discharging his
duties. For the offence under Section 353 of IPC, it is not
only obstruction, but the intention and the actual use of
criminal force or assault on the public servant is
necessary. On the perusal of the entire contents of the
record i.e., FIR, statements recorded, charge sheet, there is
no ingredient which fulfills the requirements under Section
353 of IPC. The use of criminal force or assault with intent
to obstruct the official duty is not made out as required.
The grievance primarily appears to be that accused used
filthy language and pushed aside the officer i.e.,
complainant.
JAK, J
CRLP_15569_2024
14. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is
apparent that the ingredients of Section 353 of IPC have
not been made out.
15. It is settled principle of law that under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., the High Court has the power to prevent abuse of
process of law or miscarriage of justice, either at the stage
of FIR or charge sheet.
16. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court does not find
any merit in the submissions made by learned counsel
respondent-State.
17. This Court deems it appropriate that continuance of
proceedings in C.C.No.989 of 2024 on the file of Additional
Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Jadcherla,
Mahabubnagar District, would be an abuse of process of
law, as the ingredients of Section 353 have not been made
out in the given facts and circumstances of the case.
18. On consideration of entire factual matrix of the case,
this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case to quash the
JAK, J
CRLP_15569_2024
proceedings in C.C.No.989 of 2024 on the file of Additional
Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Jadcherla,
Mahabubnagar District and are accordingly quashed.
19. With the above observations, this Criminal Petition is
allowed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
____________________________
ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J
Date: 15.04.2025
PLP
